Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Essex County Council Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Street) Bill.

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position with regard to the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay; and what steps the League of Nations is taking with a view to bringing the conflict to an end?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I regret to say that this dispute still remains unsettled. A Committee of Three appointed by the Council of the League of Nations has been following the dispute, and on the 20th May a draft report by this Committee, which had the approval of the Council, was submitted to the representatives of Bolivia and Paraguay at a meeting of the Council. The report recommended that the settlement of the dispute should be entrusted to an impartial body with authority to make proposals for determining the frontier in the disputed region. The procedure proposed involved the immediate cessation of hostilities, and the preparation of an agreement to determine the questions on which there should be arbitration. For these purposes it was suggested that a League Commission should be sent to the
Chaco region. This report has been accepted by the Paraguayan Government, but not yet by the Bolivian Government, who maintain that before they can accept arbitration on the main issue, an agreement must be reached as to the zone to be affected by the arbitral decision. Efforts are still being made to bring about a settlement on the basis proposed by the League Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has recently been taken by the committee of 21 of the League of Nations dealing with the situation in the Far East and its sub-committees; and whether any consideration has been given to the question of a general prohibition by all countries of imports from Japan as an economic sanction?

Mr. EDEN: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) on 14th June. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that the meetings of these sub-committees should be held in public, so that the positions taken up by each country could be ascertained?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter does not rest with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to announce the personnel of the delegation to the League of Nations Assembly in September?

Mr. EDEN: I have been asked to reply. The personnel of the United Kingdom Delegation to the League of Nations Assembly in September is at present under consideration and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to be able to announce its composition shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the visit of Dr. Dollfuss
to this country, the opportunity has been taken to exchange views regarding the situation in Austria; and whether he can make a statement as to the present position?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Opportunity was taken during the recent visit of Dr. Dollfuss, the Austrian Chancellor, to London, to exchange views regarding the present situation in Austria. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on Monday last, the Austrian Chancellor has the sympathy of His Majesty's Government, and, I may add, of public opinion in this country, in his efforts to establish the finances of Austria on a sound basis and to maintain the authority and independence of that State.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman take a similar opportunity of speaking with the Latvian representative over here, seeing that similar troubles are brewing in that country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of the question.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May the House be assured that there is nothing in the way of a new loan being guaranteed to Austria?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the arrangements are for the admission of Members of Parliament and the general public to the World Economic Conference?

Mr. EDEN: The arrangements for admission to the Monetary and Economic Conference are in the hands of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. Application for an admission card should be made to the Admission Card Office at the Conference.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: How can a Member of Parliament get a constituent into the Conference?

Mr. EDEN: It is difficult to say, except by the ordinary regulation method. The hon. Member will appreciate that this Conference is not called by His Majesty's Government, but is a League of Nations Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (COLONIES).

Mr. MANDER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Herr Hugenberg's memorandum on the German claim to colonies has been submitted to the Foreign Office?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that, before anything of the kind can be considered, Germany must become in all respects a fully civilised State?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ROYAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE, GLASGOW (DIRECTOR).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the amount of pension per annum payable to Sir Arthur Huddleston, late of the Sudan Government service, recently appointed to the directorship of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow; and is this pension paid entirely from Sudan Government funds or does it, or any part of it, come directly or indirectly from the British Treasury funds?

Mr. EDEN: The pension referred to amounts to one thousand pounds Egyptian per annum. It is paid entirely from Sudan Government funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD BIRDS (PROTECTION).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the report recently submitted to him with regard to the necessity for protecting certain wild birds on Ailsa Craig?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The county council's report to which my hon. and gallant friend refers was received on 17th May, and has been referred to the Scottish Advisory Committee on Wild Birds. A reply will be sent to the county council as soon as possible after I have considered the committee's report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NEW CONSTRUCTION (SUBMARINE "GRAMPUS").

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the
Submarine "Grampus," which is mentioned on page 328 of the current Navy Estimates as to be built at Chatham Dockyard, has yet been laid down, or whether there has been any change in the programme of submarine construction?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Owing to slight changes in design, the "Grampus" has not yet been laid down, and will not be proceeded with until later in the year. In view of this, however, one of the submarines of the "Swordfish" class, included in the 1933 programme, is being brought forward and put in hand immediately, at Chatham Yard.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY HOUSE (AERIALS).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it will be possible to remove the existing aerials on top of Admiralty House; what would be the cost involved in transferring them to some other convenient place; and whether he will consider taking such action in order to increase the appearance and amenities of the Admiralty buildings?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The aerials on the roof of the Admiralty building are necessary to ensure that communication between the Fleets at sea and the Admiralty should be rapid, direct and reliable under all conditions. No other site would be convenient.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY (for Sir WILLIAM DAVISON): 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement issued last week by Mr. Roosevelt, the President of the United States, that he has just authorised an expenditure of £59,000,000 for building warships under the London treaty; what is the total expenditure approved by Great Britain in this regard; what sum has been spent; and what sum still remains to be spent?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reply to the second part is £39,000,000, to the third part £8,250,000 up to 31st March last, and to the last part £30,750,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Sir JOHN WARD LAW-MILNE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the progress of the negotiations for rubber restriction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that discussions have taken place between certain English and Dutch rubber producers. No negotiations are in progress between the two Governments.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making a further statement publicly regarding this matter, so that there should be no doubt in the minds of the producers as to what is the policy of the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have made a very plain statement in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, which I think is very opportune. As regards the last attempt at negotiation, I made a very full statement in this House as to the conclusions arrived at by our Government and other Governments.

Sir J. WARD LAW-MILNE: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's first reply that no request for negotiation with the Dutch Government has been made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have received no request from the Dutch Government of any sort or kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

TAXATION.

Mr. LUNN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the letter he has addressed to the governor of Kenya on certain points of detail in the alternative system of taxation can be made available for Members of this House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir; I am arranging for copies of the dispatch to be placed in the Library of the House.

Captain GUEST: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to take any further steps to see that the danger of budget deficits in Kenya Colony is avoided in future; and whether he is aware that, failing further economies in administration, even the new taxation which is about to be imposed will not be sufficient to prevent deficits in future years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government of Kenya may be relied upon to exercise constant vigilance in the reduction of expenditure in every possible direction. Revenue prospects in an agricultural country are largely dependent upon the course of world-prices, and I am not prepared to endorse my right hon. and gallant Friend's forecast of recurrent deficits in future years.

Captain GUEST: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that his decision not to insist upon the imposition of an income tax in Kenya has been warmly received in the Colony; and whether, in view of the fact that he was influenced by the argument that taxpayers should be allowed to choose that form of taxation which best suits them, subject to yielding the necessary revenue, he will now take steps to give the elected members a more effective voice in the control of the Colony's finances?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen several reports in the newspapers that the decision has been favourably received. As regards the latter part of the question, my right hon. and gallant Friend will remember the recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on East Africa, particularly in paragraphs 75, 96, 97 and 98 of their report. The views of this very representative Committee of both Houses were expressed after a long and thorough investigation; and Debates in Parliament have shown that, broadly, their report commanded the general approval of the House; and the considered view of the Government on the Select Committee's Report is set out in my published dispatch of 13th July, 1932. I am sending my right hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Command Paper containing this dispatch.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the second part of the question exactly states the situation, namely, that he was influenced by the argument that taxpayers should be allowed to choose that form of taxation which best suits them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The situation is very clearly stated in the dispatch which I published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Once satisfied that there was an alternative form of taxation which fully satisfied the Govern-
ment and was more acceptable to the people as one of the two forms of the taxation which they had to pay, I took the course that they should have the alternative form of taxation.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that principle to this country'?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not responsible for initiating proposals for taxation in this country.

Mr. LUNN: Is the alternative form in accordance with the Moyne Report?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Lord Moyne suggested that there must be some form of further taxation upon the non-native community, if financial balance were to be restored, and he said that, broadly speaking, he thought that Income Tax appeared to be the most reasonable course. I am entitled to say that, in view of Lord Moyne's very thorough inquiry and report, I did consult him, before taking my decision, and that he expressed his entire concurrence with the course which I have now taken.

Captain GUEST: Is there any expectation that the recommendations of the expenditure advisory committee, which was set up by the Governor last spring, will be adopted in framing the future estimates of the Colony?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not answer that off-hand. Certainly, enormous economies have already been made—really enormous. Other economies are in course of being made. I hope to have an opportunity, when the Governor is here, of discussing the subject of economy with him.

Mr. JONES: May we take it that no abrogation of the right of the Government to decide what form of taxation is suitable in any part of the Colony is implied?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Absolutely no abrogation of that essential, paramount power is contemplated; but surely it is wise, while exercising that paramount power, to take into the fullest consultation those who are going to be affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

Miss RATHBONE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much money is being spent by the Govern-
ment of Kenya Colony on the education of African boys and African girls, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The form in which the statistics of the Kenya Education Department are compiled does not enable me to furnish the information desired.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not true to say that we ought never to measure the value of education merely by the amount of money that is spent on it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure whether that is intended to be a reflection on the public schools or not.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the native boys and girls here are as well educated as is possible?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I have enough to do to look after education in the Colonial Empire.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I mean as far as his Office will permit.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's supplementary question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Miss RATHBONE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the annual report of the education department of Kenya Colony for 1931 that practically no provision is being made for African girls at Government schools in the Colony except for a small number of girls at a single school, and that the suggested appointment of an organising inspectress of girls' education has not been carried out; and if he will take steps to deal with these defects?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the paragraphs in the Kenya education report upon which the first part of the question is based. The local Government is fully alive to the importance of providing educational facilities for native girls, but, in the present state of the Colony's finances, any increase of expenditure is, unfortunately, out of the question. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that nearly 38,000 native girls attended mission schools, many of which receive grants-in-aid from Government.

Miss RATHBONE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what principle
underlies the practice of dealing with the education of the boys directly through Government schools, and leaving the girls to the missions? Is the theory that Christianity matters more to the girls, or that education matters less?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That would be a series of false deductions based, if I may say so, upon false premises.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is it that the girls are more intelligent, so that it is not necessary to spend so much money upon them as upon the boys?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I expect that that, as in this country, varies from girl to girl.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he squares his present answer with that which he gave to my supplementary question just now —that he had plenty to do in managing the Colonial Office, without interfering with the education of the children?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not say that. I said that I was responsible for education in the Colonies, and not in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFEICA (LOCUSTS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the report of the Locust Committee, which recommended that arrangements should be made for an aeroplane fitted with poison dust-spraying apparatus to be despatched to East African Colonies for operation against locusts at an early date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to his question on 29th March. The preliminary experiments are being actively pursued under the auspices of the Economic Advisory Council, but I understand that certain technical difficulties still remain to be surmounted before active work in the field can he inaugurated.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman made any advance in this matter? What has he been doing?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been doing exactly what this very expert committee advised should be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (EDUCATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the working of the Maltese Government, especially in the matter of the education stipulations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have nothing of substance to add to my previous statements. The stipulations regarding the teaching of languages in the elementary schools remain as laid down in the Letters Patent of 25th April, 1932, and these are being adhered to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the scheme is operating according to the wishes of the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. There has been no deviation from the letters patent, or will there be.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is any attempt being made to thwart the wish of the natives of Malta to have their own language taught in the schools?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. That as not a question that arises from the question on the Paper. The Maltese language is the medium through which the native children are taught English.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION (CUSTOMS DUTY ON FUEL).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has now been able to obtain any action with regard to the anomaly that, whereas foreign aircraft enjoy freedom from Customs duty on fuel taken on board by them in England, machines purchasing fuel in foreign countries have in many cases to pay full Customs duty on such fuel?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Statistical information has now been collected by the League of Nations, and the question has been remitted to the appropriate advisory and technical committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (MOTOR VEHICLES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 22.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for Air if he is aware
that in 1930 a contract was placed for the supply of medium type six-wheeled motor vehicles, and that during the three follow-years orders were placed with the same firm without competitive tenders being obtained; and for what reason were these orders placed without competition?

Sir P. SASSOON: The contract placed in 1930, which was based on competitive tenders, was for a period of three years. The object of the three-year period was to secure standardisation and to avoid the duplication of vehicles and stocks of spare parts. The prices paid in 1931 and 1932 were based on the tender prices of 1930, and they cannot, therefore, be correctly described as non-competitive.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why is it that the Air Ministry depart from the practice of other Departments in not asking for competitive tenders?

Sir P. SASSOON: We do ask for competitive tenders, but, as I explained in my answer, there were certain other considerations which had to be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING ACCIDENTS.

Mr. HALES: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the serious injuries caused by outbreaks of fire on motor cars on the Stone, Stafford, and Brighton roads during the past few days; and if he contemplates taking such action as will reduce the number of such accidents in future?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My hon. Friend has sent me newspaper reports of these accidents. In each case, so far as it is possible to judge from the reports, an ordinary fire extinguisher carried on the vehicle would have proved ineffective. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave him on the 12th May.

Mr. HALES: Is it not a fact that these fatalities are increasing daily, and that, if an extinguisher were carried on every oar, not only would one car be made safe, but every car that came up would be practically a fire engine and able to give assistance? How many more valuable
lives are to be sacrificed, and how much more property is to be destroyed, before the Ministry realise their responsibilities?

Miss RATHBONE: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, since 13th April, there have been at least four fatal accidents on the Margate-Canterbury road, two children being killed in the village of Hersden; and, in view of the fact that many motorists ignore drive slowly notices posted outside the village, what steps he proposes to take for the protection of the inhabitants?

Mr. STANLEY: I am aware that fatal accidents have occurred recently at the village of Hersden involving the death of two children. I am not in a position to apportion responsibility for them. I am instructing one of my engineers to examine the position with a view to seeing whether the danger to inhabitants of the village could be reduced by the better siting of the existing signs or by the erection by the highway authority of other suitable danger or warning signs, in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Departmental Committee on Road Traffic Signs which is to be published very shortly.

Miss RATHBONE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that many inhabitants of the village strongly desire that the footpath should be widened, as one of the accidents is partly attributable to the fact that the footpath is not sufficiently wide for two people to walk abreast?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Lady is rather rushing in where I feared to tread and allocating responsibility for the accident. I will certainly consider any representations made to me with regard to the question of the footpath.

MOTOR INSURANCE (AGED DRIVERS).

Mr. HALES: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that insurance companies have imposed an age limit of 75 years beyond which they refuse to issue any policies to cover risks appertaining to motor car driving; and whether, in the event of applicants beyond that age being desirous of obtaining a licence, he will take steps to establish a medical board which will decide as to suitability to possess a licence?

Mr. STANLEY: I am not aware that insurance companies have adopted as a general rule the imposition of an age limit beyond which they decline to accept proposals for insurance against third party risks, and I see no sufficient reason for adopting the suggestion made in the second part of the question.

Mr. HALES: As this has been done, may I ask whether it is necessary to allow the insurance companies to enforce an age limit under which a young man like myself may be debarred from driving when he gets to be one day older than 74 years and 364 days?

Mr. STANLEY: It may be that the insurance companies will not be willing to insure the hon. Member apart from the question of age.

Mr. HALES: In that case, may I not have the option of proving my capabilities to a competent tribunal?

Mr. CAPORN: Arising out of the original answer, may I ask if it is the policy of the Government to leave private insurance companies to decide whether people are or are not to drive motor cars on the road?

Mr. STANLEY: The policy is to allow them to choose what persons they shall insure.

OMNIBUS SERVICE, DONCASTER-THORNE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25 and 26.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) on whose initiative the Yorkshire traffic commissioners are considering curtailment of the omnibus service between Doncaster and Thorne; and whether consideration will be given to the possibility that further unemployment will be created by limiting the service;
(2) whether it was on the initiative of the omnibus proprietors plying for hire between Doncaster and Thorne or of the traffic commissioners that the issue of return fares has been abolished; and whether any opportunity was afforded for representatives of the travelling public to state a case?

Mr. STANLEY: The only information I have as to these variations is that published in the Official "Notices and Proceedings" of the Traffic Commissioners for the Yorkshire Area, Nos. 100 and 111, in which any person who desired to object
to the proposed variations was invited to give notice in writing to the traffic commissioners. The Road Traffic Act, 1930, grants certain rights of appeal to me against decisions of the traffic commissioners, and if any valid appeal is made to me in the matter, I shall arrive at a decision on the appeal after full consideration of all the circumstances of the case.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can an appeal to the Minister be lodged regarding the abolition of return fares, as well as the suggested curtailment of the service in this particular area?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate the facts to me.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Commissioners and point out to them how badly this will affect all people who must travel in this area, and particularly the parents of the school children who must travel over this route in order to attend the grammar schools and receive the benefit of the educational facilities available?

Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly communicate with the Commissioners and find out the facts with regard to the application, but it would be outside the duties which Parliament has placed upon me to make any such communication as the hon. Member suggests.

INFLAMMABLE OILS (CONVEYANCE).

Mr. MABANE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the grave risks to public safety when a motor-lorry carrying inflammable oil is in collision, he can say what special precautions are taken for the conveyance of inflammable oils by road?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Regulations, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, are in force under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, governing the conveyance of petroleum spirit by road. These Regulations lay down a number of requirements designed to minimise the risks from fire or other accident during such conveyance. It has not, so far, been found necessary to apply the provisions of the Petroleum Act to other kinds of inflammable oils.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES (EMPIRE SISAL).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 28.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the successful trials carried out in connection with rope and hawsers made from Empire sisal, he can state whether he proposes to insist upon any extended use of such rope in Office of Works contracts and operations?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Inquiries are at present being made in the Office of Works into the possibility of utilising rope made from Empire sisal, but I may point out that the Department's direct purchases of rope are negligible in amount.

Captain MACDONALD: If they want to make inquiries, will they inquire of the Post Office, which has made the experiment successfully.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DENMARK (IMPOSTS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 29 and 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, under the Danish system of the restriction of imports by means of exchange certificates, there has recently been any reduction of the import quota below 45 per cent. so far as Great Britain is concerned; and whether Great Britain receives more favourable treatment than other countries;
(2) whether, since the Danish system of licensing imports by means of exchange certificates restricts the opportunities for the development of the British export trade in manufactured goods to Denmark, he will open negotiations with a view to securing some modification of the scheme favourable to British manufacturers?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Under the Danish import control system importers of certain classes of goods have to obtain licences from the Danish authorities and there is a provision that in general an importer's licence is not to be retricted to an amount less than 45 per cent. of the value of his imports in 1931. Definite quotas are not allotted to the countries from which goods are imported. I have no reason to think that the system
is operating to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom trade, but this matter is being carefully watched.

IMPORT DUTIES, AUSTRALIA (ELASTIC FABRICS).

Mr. PERKINS: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will discuss with the Australian representative at the World Economic Conference the recent increases in Australian duties against British elastic manufactured goods?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am at present awaiting the receipt of the Report of the Australian Tariff Board in accordance with which the recent duty on certain kinds of elastic fabric was imposed. If, after studying the report, there is any useful action that I can take in the matter, I shall not fail to do so.

Mr. PERKINS: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get this report?

Mr. THOMAS: I could not give a date, but I realise the urgency and importance of the matter.

CROWN FORESHORES (RENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, it is intended to take as a result of the protests against increased rents charged by the Board of Trade for Crown lands on the foreshore of. Certain seaside resorts in Great Britain?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I received a deputation on 31st May from the Conference of Health and Pleasure Resorts in regard to the rentals of Crown foreshores. It was then arranged that the Board of Trade should send a letter to the conference explaining fully the Board's intentions. This letter has now been despatched, and I am sending a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. LUNN: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the total expenditure on all forms of Poor Law relief for the year ended 31st March, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Complete returns relating to expenditure on all forms of poor relief in the year ended 31st March, 1933, have not yet been received in my Department. The figures for which the hon. Member asks are therefore not yet available.

Mr. LUNN: When are they likely to be available?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The preparation takes a considerable time. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down in a week's time.

BRITISH ARMY (RESERVE OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office when Class III of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers was instituted; what are the conditions of service; and when officers of Class II are transferred to Class III and under what circumstances?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Class III of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers was formed in 1932. Officers (other than those in receipt of retired pay) of Classes I and II who fail to report themselves in writing to the Army Council at the beginning of each year are transferred to Class III-at the end of the year in which they fail to report themselves. Liability for service is unaffected by the transfer, which is carried out with a view to eliminating from the rolls of Classes I and II the names of officers whose services cannot be counted upon in an emergency owing to their whereabouts being unknown.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will not my hon. Friend consider verifying in some way the whereabouts of these officers, because many of us who are on the retired list forget to report annually, and possibly it might mean the loss of the services of quite useful officers in an emergency.

Mr. COOPER: In an emergency officers who forget to report will remember it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are there any signs of an emergency which would make it necessary to call up unknown officers? Who is the enemy?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

AUSTRALIAN BUTTER (PRICES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the wholesale price of butter in Australia and the -wholesale price at which Australian butter is sold in London?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the price of what is known as "Kangaroo" butter in Melbourne on 16th May, the latest date of which I have information, was 123s. 10d.(Australian currency) per hundredweight. On the same date in London the price of butter of the same quality was from 79s. to 80s. (sterling) per hundredweight.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does not that show that Australian butter is sold dear in Australia in order to be sold cheaply in Great Britain, thereby crippling the British farmer?

Mr. THOMAS: I think it does look like it.

Lieut.Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not this dumping of Australian butter contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Ottawa Agreement, and will the right hon. Gentleman try to prevent it?

CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of Canadian cattle imported for immediate slaughter during the last month and the price per live hundredweight obtained for them?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. During the four weeks ended 10th June last, 6,410 cattle were imported from Canada. During that period 1,649 were slaughtered at the landing place and 1,592 were licensed out for immediate slaughter. According to my right hon. Friend's information the price of such cattle ranged from 6d. to 71d. per lb. dead weight; this is approximately the equivalent of from 30s. to 38s. per live cwt.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that these cattle are depressing the prices of home-grown
cattle, and will he do something to restrict the quantities?

Sir G. BOWYER: I have answered the two questions which my hon. and gallant Friend asked in his question.

CANADIAN WHEAT (PREFERENTIAL DUTY).

Mr. WHITE: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it has now been possible to make arrangements whereby Canadian wheat exported via the United States ports shall be entitled to the benefit of the preferential duty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, Canadian wheat which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been consigned to the United Kingdom from a part of the British Empire is admitted free of duty and the fact that such wheat passes through United States ports en route to this country does not bar the wheat from preference. There has been no change in this respect but certain of the trade interests affected have recently had discussions with the Customs Department during which the types of evidence that could be accepted by the Customs as showing that such wheat was consigned to this country from Canada were fully explained.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, having regard to the loss of export trade for British coal to the Irish Free State, he will take steps to end the dispute which has resulted in the transfer of orders for a million tons a year to Germany and Poland; and whether, in the interests of unemployed coal miners in South Wales, he will attempt to negotiate a settlement of this dispute?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: As I have said before, in reply to previous questions, I regret that the action which the Irish Free State Government have seen fit to take in pursuance of their dispute with this country has caused loss of trade to both countries. As regards the second part of the question, I have, on several
occasions, made it clear that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom remain desirous of a friendly settlement with the Irish Free State and I should at any time be ready to attempt to negotiate such a settlement—provided that I was satisfied that the conditions existed which would make such an attempt worth while.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the working people in the coalfield are looking to him to show an inclination to bring the dispute to an end and give them a chance to work?

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the working people in the coalfield represent the feeling of the majority of people in the country and would desire us to take a stand on ground which they believe to be right.

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that much of the coal that used to be shipped to Ireland is now being used for making the same goods in this country that used to be made in Ireland?

Mr. RONALD ROSS: Is there not a vast volume of goods entering this country without paying any duty at all, and will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in view of attempts to interfere with British trade?

Mr. THOMAS: In imposing any duty we have never attempted to be vindictive. The object of imposing the duty was to secure to the revenues of this country money to which in our judgment we were entitled.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is making no attempt at all to bring this unfortunate dispute to an end?

Mr. THOMAS: I have repeatedly stated that we will welcome any opportunity of bringing the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion, but no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that an approach is sometimes interpreted as weakness. Our position has been made clear repeatedly. We have never slammed the door, we will not slam it, and we are open to negotiation at all times.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Empire would be shocked if the Government would concede to the Irish Free
State the question of the composition of the tribunal?

ACCIDENTS (OVERWINDING).

Mr. TINKER: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines if the committee set up to in vestigate the prevention of accidents due to overwinding have completed their inquiries; and, if so, when the report will be issued?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The committee referred to is actively pursuing its investigation and evidence has been taken from a number of witnesses. Many witnesses still have to be heard and in view of the wide scope of these and other inquiries which must be made to ensure an effective examination of this complex problem, some considerable time must elapse before the committee can be expected to submit its report.

Mr. TINKER: Could the hon. Gentleman give an approximate date when the inquiries will be completed, say, two or three months, when I could repeat the question?

Mr. BROWN: I could not attempt to give any forecast, but we are going to probe this thing in every direction.

AUTOMATIC ALARMS.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether copies of the reports of the recent pit trials of the Ringrose automatic alarms have yet been circulated to the interested parties; and whether the reports will be available to Members of the House?

Mr. E. BROWN: The volume containing the reports on the pit trials of the Ringrose alarm is in the press and copies will be circulated to the interested parties as soon as they are ready. The volume is not being published for general circulation, but I will arrange for copies to be available at the Vote Office so that hon. Members who are particularly interested may obtain a copy on application.

Mr. SMITH: How many reports have been received and, seeing that the inquiry has been going on for more than two years, can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication when finality is likely to be reached?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot answer the last part of the question. The actual experiments in three areas have only just been completed. There are three main reports, carrying a number of tabular appendices, and one minority report.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the last and perhaps final test has been in operation for six months and that this was preceded by five and a-half years of previous practical and laboratory tests; and does he not think that now, at long last, there ought to be a settlement either one way or the other?

Mr. BROWN: There is no need for urging that matter. The hon. Member will realise that I must get the comments of the interested parties on the reports before I make up my mind.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 41.
asked the Home Secretary if the schemes put forward by the colliery companies for the insurance of workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act will be submitted to the Miners' Federation before the Home Office accepts them as satisfactory?

Mr. HACKING: It is my right hon. Friend's desire that the Federation should be fully informed as to the arrangements which are being made. He has already told them that if they are not clear as to the position in any respect he will be glad to supply further information and consider any representations. He contemplates communicating with them again as the scheme develops further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Home Office, in any action it takes on this matter, consult the Miners' Federation?

Mr. HACKING: If the hon. Member will take the trouble to read the question and the answer, he will get a reply to the question which he has now put.

SILVER (EXCHANGE VALUE).

Mr. CHORLTON: 43 and 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has considered the resolution sent to him from the Federation of British Industries urging His Majesty's Government to encourage proposals for raising the value of silver in relation to gold; and what reply he proposes to make;
(2) whether he is aware that any artificially stimulated rise in the price of silver without a corresponding increase in prices of world commodities would reduce China's export trade, restrict her purchasing power, and cause financial difficulties to China and her trade; and will he confer with the China Association before encouraging proposals for raising the value of silver except in accordance with the process of supply and demand?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The various views taken on the silver problem, including those alluded to in the questions, will receive careful consideration; but my right hon. Friend does not think it would be desirable to make any further statement pending the discussions on the matter which are taking place at the World Monetary and Economic Conference.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent recent Treasury Bills issued for the purpose of financing the Exchange Equalisation Account have been taken up by Government Departments; whether moneys lying in the Post Office Savings Bank have been utilised for this purpose; and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Treasury Bills recently created and issued in connection with the advance of £200,000,000 to the Exchange Equalisation Account were issued by the Exchequer to that Account. The transaction was in the nature of a book-keeping transaction. None of the Bills have been taken up by the Savings Bank or other Government Departments.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what sum, and from where received, the Government have made available for the Exchange Equalisation Account?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Under authority of Acts of Parliament the Exchequer made an advance of £200,000,000 to the Exchange Equalisation Account. On the same day the Account lent back the money to the Exchequer for 90 days, and at the same moment the Exchequer gave the Account 90 days' Treasury Bills as an acknowledgment of the loan.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand, bearing in mind the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Exchange Equalisation Account made a profit, that the only funds available inside the Exchange Equalisation Account are the powers of pen and ink to transfer from one side to the other?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, that is an entirely different question. The hon. Gentleman asked me exactly how that part of the transaction occurred, and I have explained it to him.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Exchange Equalisation Account has been made up by borrowing from any Government Department apart from Treasury Bills?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should like to make this plain. I have seen a suggestion that a very large sum has been borrowed from the Post Office Savings Bank for the purpose of financing Exchange operations. That is a complete misapprehension. No sum at all has been borrowed from that source for any such purpose.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the very delicate and speculative nature of the Exchange Equalisation Account, does the hon. Gentleman regard it as not appropriate to borrow from the Post Office Savings account?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not a fact that benefits to people at Employment Exchanges in this country are taken from moneys received at certain Post Offices?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman is referring to something entirely different and makes allusion to another matter. Perhaps the House will permit me to make that plain. Over £100,000,000, representing deposits at the Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Banks had been borrowed by the Exchequer for the purpose of financing unemployment payments not met out of revenue. It was the business of the National Government to bring that unsound system to an end and to meet these current obligations without recourse to borrowing.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, for the sake of clarity and to remove any anxiety that may exist, if he will be good enough to give the House a frank statement as to exactly
the amount of money so far made available for the Exchange Equalisation Account, and where that money was derived?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the House to understand that this sum of £200,000,000 has simply been created by paper transactions in the Treasury?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought that I answered that question with great particularity. I gave the hon. Gentleman the exact particulars. At any time when the fund requires to use part of their resources for the purchase of Devisen or gold they are at liberty to sell Treasury Bills in the market.

Mr. WILLIAMS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question has already been answered.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the very great importance of this matter, is it not fair to invite the hon. Member to make a frank statement in order to remove anxieties as to where the funds that are being used are derived?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has answered three or four times.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (TREASURY BILLS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any recent Treasury Bills have been taken up from funds lying in the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, will he state the dates of such transactions and the amounts?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the last three months Treasury Bills to an aggregate amount of £250,000 were purchased by the Post Office Savings Bank. There were three transactions, two in March and one this month. All were in the ordinary course of business.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. LUNN: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in March last it was found that the firm of Messrs. Clements,
Newling and Company, contractors to His Majesty's Stationery Office, were violating the Fair Wages Clause, and that several of the employes of the firm, some of them of many years service, were subsequently discharged for having given information on the matter; what action has been taken against the firm in question; and whether it is proposed to strike them off the list of contractors in view of these facts?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A complaint that Messrs. Clements, Newling and Company were violating the conditions of the Fair Wages Clause was made by the National Union of Printing, Bookbinding and Paper Workers in February last. Investigation revealed certain irregularities which were put right by the firm. So far as I am aware the dismissals referred to in the question were in no way connected with the complaint in regard to the non-observance of the Fair Wages Clause.

Mr. LUNN: Does the hon. Member agree that the Fair Wages Clause ought to be observed when it has been passed by this House, and if I can prove to him that this firm have violated it and victimised certain of their employes, with service up to 40 years with them, will he take steps to see that such a firm is removed from the list of contractors supplying the Government?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have made inquiries and I have given an answer which shows that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension, but, if he has any other facts, I shall be only too happy to inquire into them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that this firm has been deliberately evading the Fair Wages Clause and that their word has been taken, although it has been proved that they cannot keep their word in regard to the Fair Wages Clause?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot accept that version of the facts, but I can assure the hon. Member that if he has any representations to make about this case I will certainly examine them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: How is it that a firm is maintained on the list of contractors when it has been shown to have been evading the Fair Wages Clause to
the detriment of their competitors who did not evade it, and will the Financial Secretary take steps to see that this firm is not put in a privileged position as against their competitors?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In regard to the complaints about dismissal put forward by the union and subsequently by a deputation from the London Printing and Kindred Trades Federation, the firm explained that the employes concerned had refused to fill in their daily dockets correctly and so prevented the firm from obtaining accurate information.

Mr. LUNN: Having given that statement from the employers, and I have a contradictory statement from the trade union concerned, will the hon. Member have an inquiry made into the matter so that we can be sure that a resolution passed by this House and agreed to by all parties will be carried into effect, and that the workmen will receive the benefit of it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already assured the hon. Member that if he has any further facts to bring to my notice I shall be willing to consider them.

GOVERNMENT OIL STEAMERS.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the rates of insurance on hull and machinery, and on cargo, respectively, given out to Lloyds and other underwriters in respect of Government-owned oilers engaged in carrying oil to the account of private companies; and how these rates compare with those charged to privately-owned shipping?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No insurance is paid by the Admiralty to Lloyds or other underwriters on the hull and machinery of Government-owned oilers carrying oil for private companies. The insurance of the cargoes is a matter for the private companies concerned. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the quantity of oil carried in Government-owned oilers to the account of private companies in the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 respectively?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the reply, which includes a good many figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman approves of a system whereby Government-owned ships, which have no insurance costs to meet, undercut privately-owned oilers, many of which are lying idle?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. We take care not to undercut privately-owned oilers, and we adopt the same rates.

Following is the reply:

The oil carried in Government-owned oilers on voyage charter to private companies in 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 was 359,200 tons, 268,800 tons, 159,200 tons and 194,100 tons respectively. In addition time charters were arranged which were approximately equivalent to the employment of 5, 3, 1½ and I oilers for the full 12 months in each of the four years named. The cargo carried while on time charter is a matter for charterers. Figures are not available at the Admiralty. The use of Government oilers on commercial account was equivalent in the financial years 1929,

1930, 1931 and 1932 to 43 per cent., 30 per cent., 15 per cent. and about 18 per cent. of total available user of the vessels in service. In many instances the vessels against which the Admiralty oilers were in competition were under a foreign flag.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury how far he intends to go with business to-night if he gets the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): We are proposing to suspend the Rule in order to obtain the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (Expring Enactments) Bill and the Committee stage of the Ministry of Labour Supplementary Estimate.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Captain Margesson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes,

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[3.36 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Christie, James Archibald
Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarke, Frank
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Colman, N. C. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cooke, Douglas
Gibson, Charles Granville


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gledhill, Gilbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Golf, Sir Park


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gower, Sir Robert


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Bernays, Robert
Cross, R. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Greene, William P. C.


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Blindell, James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)


Bottom, A. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Danville, Alfred
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dlckie, John p.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Donner, P. W.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Doran, Edward
Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Ernast (Leith)
Dower, Captain A, V. G.
Hales, Harold K.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Drewe, Cedrle
Hanbury, Cecll


Buchan.Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hanley, Dennis A.


Burgln, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duggan, Hubert John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Harbord, Arthur


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Eady, George H.
Harris, Sir Percy


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Eastwood, John Francis
Hartington, Marquess of


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hartland, George A.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Eimley, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Milne, Charles
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hornby, Frank
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne.C.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Howard, Tom Forrest
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Nunn, William
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stones, James


Iveagh, Countess of
Patrick, Colin M.
Storey, Samuel


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Strauss, Edward A.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Peat, Charles U.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jamleson, Douglas
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Petherick, M
Sutcliffe, Harold


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pike, Cecil F.
Templeton, William P.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thompson, Luke


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Train, John


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rankin, Robert
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Law, Sir Alfred
Rathbone, Eleanor
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rea, Walter Russell
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Lees-Jones, John
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Llddall, Walter S.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Mabane, William
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Weymouth, Viscount


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
White, Henry Graham


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Robinson, John Roland
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


McCorquodaie, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Windsor-clive, Lieut-Colonel George


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbrldge)
Womersley, Walter James


McKle, John Hamllton
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)



Manningham-Buller. Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt. Edward W.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Austin Hudson.


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

ABERDEEN ROYAL INFIRMARY AND MENTAL HOSPITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords.]

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

COLNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments; report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sheffield) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHEFFIELD) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Lord Burghley, Sir Fergus Graham and Sir George Hamilton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Morgan, Captain Peake and Lord Eustace Percy.

Report to lie upon the Table.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS (ENABLING) BILL,

"to authorise the prohibition of the importation of foreign goods as part of an international sanction under the Covenant of the League of Nations," presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Vyvyan Adams, Lieut.-Commander Bower, Mr. Curry, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Law, Mr. Mallalieu, Mr. Molson, Miss Rathbone, Brigadier-General Spears, and Colonel Wedgwood; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 29th June, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EXPIRING ENACTMENTS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOUBNE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of 20&21 Geo. 5. c. 16 and 21&22 Geo. 5. c. 36 ss. 1 and 2.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Paper:

In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "the" to the word "and," in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three."— [Mr.Buchanan.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Buchanan.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask, Captain Bourne, why you have not called the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) to leave out the words:
and Sections one and two of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), because it would impose a charge beyond that authorised by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. LAWSON: May I point out that that Amendment deals with the Anomalies Act, and the effect of the Anomalies Act is limited to the Insurance Fund proper and, therefore, cannot make any charge on the Exchequer. I cannot understand on what grounds you rule it out.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member slightly overlooks the effect of the Amendment. It is true that if the Anomalies Act were left out in the first instance it would put certain people on standard benefit, but the Act of 1930 provides that people who have not had 30 contributions during the last two years shall go on transitional payment. Those people are now excluded by the operation of the Anomalies Act, and, if the
Amendment were carried, these people would come on transitional payment and, under the National Economy Act of 1931, would become a charge on the Exchequer and not on the fund. Therefore, it is certain that in some cases it would increase the charge on the Exchequer and is therefore outside the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. LAWSON: With all due respect, may I point out to you that there are practically four Acts in this present Measure, and if the Government had chosen to take them separately we should have been dealing with the Anomalies Act on its own merits? It seems to me rather an extension of the Standing Order to apply this Rule to a Bill which is not being dealt with at the present moment. Your Ruling touches two Acts rather than the Bill we are dealing with under the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not certain that I understand the hon. Member. If His Majesty's Government had wished to repeal the Anomalies Act they would have had to make provision in the Financial Resolution to get the money necessary to pay such transitional payments as might thereby arise and which are now a charge on the Exchequer under another Act, the bulk of which is of a permanent nature and not affected by this Bill.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the ease that your explanation is based on an hypothesis which may not be found to be correct—namely, that if the Amendment is accepted, certain individuals might be placed upon transitional payments under the Act of 1930? That surely is a problematical reason, and is not an actual fact; it is merely a matter of hypothesis. Is it not stretching the rules of procedure to a rather dangerous length to rule out the Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; I think the hon. Member is wrong. Even if I accepted his view that it possibly may not impose a charge, under the Rules of the House that is sufficient to make it impossible for such an Amendment to be moved. But the Amendment goes rather further than that. If the Anomalies Act were repealed certain people who are not now entitled to benefit of any kind would become entitled to standard benefit, and
thereby would have an entitlement to transitional benefit, leaving out the effect of the operation of the means test. Therefore they would become a charge on the Exchequer. Under the Rules of the House that is what I cannot permit the hon. Member to move.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is rather involved.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "the," to the word "and," in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.
The effect of the Amendment is to shorten the life of the Bill's operation by six months. It would limit the operation of the Bill to this year. I cannot see how the Government can reasonably refuse the Amendment. I think it would be a good thing if at the end of six months the Government had to come forward and ask the sanction of the House for a continuation of the Bill for another six months. We have been promised another comprehensive Bill between now and the end of the year. Let us assume that the Government do not proceed with that other Measure. Parliament would have practically no means of criticising the Government for such inaction. But if before the end of the year the Government had to seek sanction for a continuation of this Measure, they would have to make a statement in October or November, when we meet again, as to why the larger Measure had not been introduced.
Another reason for moving the Amendment is that this Bill in essence embraces the whole question of the operation of the means test and the Anomalies Act. Consequently it cannot be a good Measure, and we wish to limit its length of operation. More important than that, we think that these Measures are so bad that the more attention the House has to give to them, and the more the Government are compelled to seek permission for a continuation of the Measures, the better it is for the Government, for the Opposition, for Parliament and for the country. Parliament cannot too often face the problems of the unemployed and their remuneration, or the administration of the Anomalies Act. Parliament
cannot too often deal with the question of the means test and all that surrounds it. We read about nothing else but the setting up or the threat of commissions. If the Government had to seek further permission for the continuation of this Bill it would mean, in effect, that the whole purpose of creating these commissions could again be discussed and the Government's actions surveyed.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support the Amendment. None of us wants this Measure, but we recognise that we have to do something to fill the gap. On Friday the Parliamentary Secretary said:
The main attack of the Labour party has been, firstly, our delay in bringing in a comprehensive Bill.
Later he said:
With regard to delay, my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the Debate that no one regretted the delay more than we do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; cols. 442 and 443; Vol. 279.]
The hon. Gentleman added that it was intended to introduce the comprehensive Bill before the end of the year, and that that meant an Autumn Session. Everyone expected that before the present Bill was brought in we should have had the comprehensive Bill before us. But it has not been introduced. What other pledge have we that the larger Bill will be before us before the end of the Session? This National Government is riding roughshod over the Opposition. It is resting on the big battalions. The Government sometimes tolerate our opinions with a good-humoured tolerance. Now is the time for us to lodge our protest and test what they intend to do. If they really meant what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary there would be no objection to saying, "Well, all right, we will agree to this because we are sure to have the comprehensive Measure before the end of the year." If the Government are unable to bring their Measure forward before the end of the year, we shall have a further opportunity of arguing on the merits or demerits of the present Bill.
There is much that calls for the attention of Parliament. By discussing these matters from time to time we are able to stem many of the injustices connected with transitional payment. Local public assistance committees do not like us to
call the attention of the House of Commons from time to time to their work. If at the end of six months the Government are not ready with a comprehensive Bill the Amendment would make sure that this House would be able to deliberate once more on the subject and protest against the provisions of this Bill. No one agrees with the present Bill. I do not think hon. Members opposite agree with it wholeheartedly, and certainly we do not agree with it. The delay that has occurred is not necessary, and I blame the Government for not having brought forward their comprehensive Bill before.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I rise only to say that I hope that if the Committee gives to the Minister the extended period of 12 months in the Bill, he will not regard it as an invitation from the. Committee to occupy that extended time in deliberations. We are all anxious to get this matter settled, and we hope that the Minister to-day will be able to give us some kind of assurance and expectation that it will be done within the period of six months. But, of course, it would not be good for the final prospects of a Measure, which must very vitally affect the lives and homes of large masses of people, if in the concluding stages of its preparation it were hustled by having a fixed date set before it. I should not like this Committee to pass an Amendment which would result in a Measure in the end being ill-considered, but my own vote on this Amendment must depend very largely upon what assurance the Minister is able to give us as to the earnestness with which the Government will endeavour to finish the matter within a reasonable time.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I do not in any way wish to enter into this question in any controversial spirit, but I do hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. I think all agree with what the first two speakers said on the subject of this Debate. I should be the last person to wish to curtail discussion on this subject, which, after all, does concern every one of our constituencies, and does affect the national life to a very great degree. I have listened to a very large number of Debates on unemployment and Unemployment Insurance Bills, but I have yet to learn of one man who
has been put into work by any of those Debates. I say, quite frankly, that I hope the Minister, when he brings in his new Bill, will make it comprehensive enough to be lasting. I do honestly believe that the House of Commons in the last two years would have spent its time very much better in certain other forms of legislation rather than in continually having to revise this kind of legislation.
I cannot at the present moment give illustrations of what I mean, but I do know of things which could be passed by the House of Commons, rather than by taking up the time in other ways between now and Christmas, that would actually put people into work, which is far more important as I see the national position. I am not saying this in any controversial spirit, and I do not wish to see the present very difficult position lengthened for a minute longer than is necessary, but I do think it will be far better if, when we do have to pass a comprehensive Bill dealing with this question, it is one which will have a great deal of consent behind it, and which will avoid the House of Commons perpetually having to discuss this form of legislation.

4.5 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) must at least be congratulated upon having found an Amendment which is in order, and also upon being able to move an Amendment with the support of the official Opposition. I cannot accept the Amendment, and I will state briefly why. No doubt the Amendment was put down for the purpose of obtaining a statement from the Government, as clear as I can make it, as to what the intention of the Government is with regard to the new Bill which, as everybody who knows anything about it—and we all know something about it—realises must be a very comprehensive, complex and not a short Bill. It is our intention to bring in that Bill and to pass it into law during the period of the present Session. I made that observation last week, and it was, I think, misunderstood in some quarters, because it was thought that the Session would necessarily come to an end in July or August. Of course, that is not necessarily the fact at all, and the Committee realises that there must be an adjournment before the autumn.
The hon. Member in his Amendment seeks to limit the present carrying-over Bill to the end of the year. Even if the Amendment were carried, it would not have the effect, I think, that is desired, because, as everybody knows, in a Bill of this kind, after it is passed into law— and I will assume for this purpose that the new Bill is passed into law late this year—it necessarily takes some little time, it may be a few weeks or a few months, before you can get the necessary machinery into operation to carry it out. Therefore, even if this Amendment were passed, it would not mean that we should not have to carry on for some time, which, I hope, will not be unduly prolonged, but for some short time after the Bill is passed into law. With regard to what the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said, I may, without hesitation, give him the assurance for which he asks. I do not for a moment say that my action is anything more than a precautionary measure, and if we find, as I hope we shall, that it is possible to bring the new scheme into operation before the expiration of this present Bill which we are now considering, no one will be more anxious and more desirous than I am. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said that he supported this Amendment by way of protest. He is perfectly entitled to do that, but, having made his protest, I hope he will not press his Amendment.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly that he proposed to table his new comprehensive Bill before we adjourn for the Summer Recess, and finish it before this Session closes?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then, of course, it may not come in this Session at all. It may come next Session or to-day, tomorrow or some day. Nobody knows when. I only got up to say that I rather disagree—and this is quite a personal view—with those who are so anxious to get a very comprehensive Measure. We do not know what it is going to be. I cannot imagine that it will be a Bill which will receive general assent. I do not think that the Government could possibly bring in a Bill to get my consent, so that I should not, if I were the right
hon. Gentleman, rely on any easy passage for this wonderful Bill. I should like to remind the hon. Member opposite that they do not propose to bring it in this Session.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. It has previously happened that the Session goes on till December. The Session does not come to an end with the Recess. This Session, for all I know may, and I have no doubt it will, go on after the Recess till some time in the late autumn, as it did last year, and has done many times.

Mr. LANSBURY: We know that the Session does not end until it ends. It may be, as I said just now, next day, some time or never. It may go on for ever for all we know.

Mr. WALTER REA: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: Parliaments are supposed to end in five years. But I do not want to enter into a constitutional argument with the Whip of the Liberal party. I want to tie down the right hon. Gentleman about this. Do I understand the Bill will not be introduced this side of the Adjournment?

Sir H. BETTERTONindicated assent.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then I was right in one thing. My next question was whether it was proposed to pass the Bill this Session. Is it certain that the Bill is going to be passed before this Session ends?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is my intention.

Mr. LANSBURY: We know that the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. I want to get the fact. I want to be quite sure. You have a good intention of passing the Bill, but you are not at all sure whether you will or not. For my own part I am not greatly concerned about the promised Bill, but hon. Members opposite are as to whether they will vote with us or not, and, apparently, you can only say that by good luck and good fortune you hope to get the Bill through.

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, more by good management.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to support the Amendment. I am in complete agreement
with the Leader of the Opposition in the point of view he expressed that the new comprehensive Measure which is promised, and has been promised for some considerable time, will probably not be a Measure that we would desire to have as the charter of the unemployed in this country. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) stated that very plainly in the Second Reading Debate. But that is not the point Which we want to bring to issue by this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would not, I am sure, want me to interpret his speech to mean that he wants to see the existing treatment of the unemployed continued. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) fell in love with the idea of continuing the operation of the existing legislation.

Mr. COVE: I was applauding the statement which showed less faith in what this Government might do than this Amendment seemed to imply.

Mr. MAXTON: Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and myself have learnt in a somewhat bitter school not to expect too much from Governments, and we cannot be accused of having top much faith in the generality of Governments. The only faith that we have is in our own right to air the grievances and claims of the unemployed, and we are asking that we should get that right in six months, and not in 18 months or 12 months. We want on that occasion, not more than six months from now, to make the claim for the unemployed which was made on our behalf before the Royal Commission; a claim which does not differ substantially from that made by the Trade Union Congress, except in one or two points and which was, before the Labour party took office, the official policy of the Labour party. We want to make our demand for the unemployed at the earliest possible opportunity and we are certainly not content to cast a vote in this House in favour of simply continuing the existing treatment. That means the cut benefit which is being paid to the unemployed to-day; it means the Anomalies Act with all the evils arising from it; it means the Means Test and all the investigations; it means the Durham Commissioners and it means widespread misery. To vote for this Bill
is to vote for a continuation of those conditions for over a year. We want to limit the existing treatment of the unemployed to the shortest possible period.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have no reason to assume that the Minister can undertake more than to do his best to bring forward this new legislation at an early date. I know that Ministers with very good intentions as regards making haste are often delayed by considerations outside their control. For example, there is a Factories Bill, a most imposing piece of legislation, intended to codify all the factory legislation which has been passed since factory legislation began. It was first associated, I think, with the present Lord Bridgeman when he was Home Secretary in a Conservative Government. We were then told that it was about to be introduced, and the Minister was keen on it, but it was not introduced. Later, when Mr. Arthur Henderson became Home Secretary he took over the Measure and made certain modifications in it. He was going to produce this legislation. It has been in the Home Office all the time but it has never been here. It remains somewhere in the offing.
One can well imagine that other preoccupations such as international complications and essential legislation arising out of the deliberations of the World Economic Conference — because presumably the Government assume some measure of success in that assembly— would easily occupy all the time in a very limited Autumn Session. If the Minister finds it impossible to bring in his comprehensive legislation during the Autumn Session then it will have to be carried over to February or March next. All that time the unemployed will continue to exist under the present conditions. The nature of those conditions has been shown by many Members in the course of the Second Reading Debate. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), for instance, showed the serious physical deterioration that is taking place among the unemployed.
To-morrow we shall be discussing the report of the Department of Health for Scotland and we shall find that the figures of infantile mortality and maternal mortality are worse than they have been for years. That is accounted for entirely by the conditions under which most of
our unemployed in Scotland have to live. It is a shocking thing that the infantile mortality rate which had been tending downwards should now be going upwards, and that in connection with maternal mortality, one of the most obstinate problems which this country has to face, figures which were being, if not reduced, at least brought to a stationary point, should now be on the upward grade. Yet we are asked to give the Minister power to extend the duration of conditions that are working such havoc in our population. We are asked to continue those conditions for a long period of time. We, on these benches, say that the shortest period of time possible is the period for which such conditions should be imposed and that is the purpose of our Amendment.
I put another consideration to the Minister. I do not claim to have a perfect understanding of the policy of the National Government. I question if anyone really understands what they are trying to get at but if I have, in a vague general way, any idea of the intention of the Government in their work up to now, I think it has been to develop our home market and our home production. The effective legislation towards that end, we are told, has been passed and is now working, and in many newspapers that support the Government I see claims that, industrially and economically, the nation has now passed the bottom of the curve and that its trade and industry are on the up-grade. We are told that the figures in many important industries are showing an upward trend for the first time for years, and that imports and ex-portes make a better showing during the month just completed than they have done for a very long time previously. If it be true that the policy of the National Government is producing fruits then it is only right and proper that they should now reconsider the temporary economies which were imposed upon the unemployed.
Remember that the National Government got its sweeping majority at the General Election by making the mass of people believe that if they would only submit temporarily to privations—for a limited period of time—then, as soon as things began to get better, the conditions which existed previously would be restored. The population of this country,
trusting in that promise, gave the Government a tremendous mandate. If the desperate conditions which were imposed, as a temporary measure, on the poorest sections of the community are maintained a minute longer than absolutely desperate national need compels, it will be an act of the most dishonourable nature towards a trusting and confiding section of the population. We have listened to many lectures from Ministers in this Parliament on the sanctity of a Government's word. We have been told that a bargain made between two nations must be kept at all costs—that to break such a bargain would be an act of the deepest-dyed treachery. If that be true, what can be said of the action of a Government, deriving its power and its mandate from its own people, whose people in giving it that power have imposed upon themselves terrible standards of life, believing, as they had been told, that temporary sacrifice would save the situation—what can be said of such a Government, if, when the sacrifice has been made and the desperate situation has been escaped from, they continue for an extended period conditions of abject poverty among the people. To do so is dishonourable and treacherous. It is something which debases the public life of the nation to the lowest depths. If the Government believe that their policy has produced results, if they believe that trade and industry are now on the up-grade it is their duty, in the months that lie immediately ahead, to take the burdens which they imposed on the shoulders of the poorest off those shoulders and to give the people at least conditions that will enable them to maintain physical efficiency.
There is the further consideration that, if the Government policy is directed towards making the home market of more importance than the foreign market, the first essential to trading in the home market is a home market in which to trade. The spending power of 3,000,000 people and their dependants is a tremendously important fraction of the total national trade and one cannot regard the unemployed man with 15s. 3d. a week—subject to deductions after investigations into the family income—as an effective consumer in the home market. From all these points of view we urge the Government to accept the earlier date which we propose. We ask them to be ready in the
autumn with new legislation of a kind which will recognise that the unemployed people are also Britishers, that they are not as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) once aptly put it, a class apart, a group of untouchables to be treated as meanly and bought off as cheaply as possible.

Mr. WALLHEAD: "The lesser breeds without the law."

Mr. MAXTON: We urge the Government to remember that the unemployed are citizens of this country and important factors in our national life. Bring forward legislation that recognises them as human beings and our equals, and I am certain that, if the Minister approaches the framing of his new legislation in that frame of mind and puts it before this House in concrete terms—it need not be a complicated and an abstruse Measure, but can be a simple, plain Measure, easy to understand—and if it embodies that principle of generosity and recognition of equality, there will be no difficulty from any section of the Opposition in getting it through this House in a limited period of time.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I rise to support the Amendment, not because I think the comprehensive Bill promised by the Government will be of any use at all, but because I do not believe in procrastination, because I think that six months is quite long enough a period in which to face the issue, and because I feel that, outside, the unthinking or the thinking people will have an opportunity in that time of understanding the complexion of the National Government. While I have been in this House I have seen the danger of the means test and the Anomalies Act, and I want this issue to be quite clear to the House, so that we shall be able in the Bill to have reasoned and honest opinions expressed. There are many difficulties, and they are very complex, and therefore I think six months is the right and proper time to allow.
None of the Members of the National Government can honestly say that they have had a mandate from the people for this legislation. The national difficulty got the upper hand of a great many people in this country, but when one begins to consider the great economies that have been effected, and when we are
told, as we are very often, that now we are substantially solvent, I imagine that the 3,000,000 people outside who are suffering will find the time quite ready for an adjustment to be made with regard to their living conditions. I do not believe in revolution by bloodshed, but I do believe in revolution by constitutional methods, and I want to see some life put into the body politic that will make us believe that we have a National Government dealing with our affairs. Foreign politics are discussed ad lib. in this House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting very far away from the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN: I did not wish to say anything with regard to the latitude that this Debate was taking, because I thought it suited my convenience very well when the hon. Member who preceded me rambled pretty wide.

Mr. MAXTON: Order!

Mr. LOGAN: I say "rambled" with all due respect, but the hon. Member was covering a great deal of ground, and I thought it was very useful for my purposes. I will, however, confine myself to the point with regard to six months. No one would be more satisfied and content if such a thing as contentment and peace of mind could come to a Minister of the National Government. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will get that.
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.
I do not think that applies to any Members of the House of Commons, and I do not think the Minister will enjoy any peace when he brings forward his Bill in 12 months' time. Ministers are filled with anxiety. Procrastination may kill a good British Minister, and I want him to be long-lived and to get rid of his misery in six months instead of waiting 12 months. I am sure it would relieve the anxiety of many of the absentee Members of this House, who only come occasionally, if we could get rid of the question of unemployment. It would salve their conscience, and they would be able to tell some pretty stories in their constituencies to the unemployed as to how very well the House of Commons was getting on with regard to them. Further, from the
point of view of keeping them contented, I think the Minister should be anxious to get this difficulty out of the way within six months. If it does not lead to mental cases among the unemployed, it will certainly lead to mental cases among Members of Parliament, because they will be inundated by the applications made to them by their constituents.
This is a serious problem, and I am convinced that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has brought it forward in the best interests of the unemployed. This tragedy of unemployment ought to be dealt with, and the National Government are not going to live for ever. I know there is a measure to their capacity, and everybody outside knows their measure, if it is not known much inside this House. I think six months is quite long enough. I know that it takes Cabinet Ministers in the National Government a long time to make up their minds, and sometimes it is very hard to know whether there is any mind to make up, but if a time-limit were specified, they would have to have someone to make them understand that they had to do something within the period of six months. Six months to unemployed men is a long time. In those six months are we going to have a complete change, and are we going to have commissioners appointed in the industrial areas? I am anxious to know. I do not want to go on for 12 months thinking that everything is all right, because I am satisfied that it is not, and for the peace of the country, for the tranquillity of Members of the Labour party, and for the unbalancing of the National Government, the sooner they face this issue the better. I therefore support the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: As usual, the Opposition are very unreasonable, as is shown by the fact that their arguments have wandered between the last General Election, the World Economic Conference, and the Scottish Estimates to-morrow; and even foreign politics were tried by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), without success. Everybody in this House and outside knows that the question of permanent unemployment legislationh has occupied the attention of the Department, of the Minister, and of the Government for a very long time past.

Mr. LOGAN: Too long.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is not for the Opposition to say that. It was in the time of Miss Bondfield that we had—

Mr. LOGAN: Do not mention her name.

Viscountess ASTOR: Why not?

Mr. LOGAN: Because she was no good to anybody.

Captain CROOKSHANK: We had a great many delays in her time in dealing with the general problem, which was afterwards referred to a Royal Commission, and I am certain that the Minister knows quite well the great anxiety that is felt in this part of the House that adequate permanent legislation should be introduced as soon as possible. It is a little unreasonable, when my right hon. Friend has given us the only possible assurance that he can give us, namely, that he intends to introduce the Measure and to pass it into law before the Session ends, for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to pooh-pooh that assurance, if he only carries his mind back to the activities of Miss Bondfield on this particular question.
The suggestion that I want to make to my right hon. Friend the Minister, in case it has not crossed his mind, is that when the new Bill comes, it will be very complicated, and it will probably, as he foreshadowed in his Second Reading speech, involve great and fundamental changes in administration. I therefore hope that before we rise for the summer Recess, be will introduce it in dummy form, so that it can be printed and circulated during the holidays, in order that we may have the opportunity of studying it and discussing it with the people, with the local authorities and so on, who may be concerned in parts of it. Then, when it comes up for discussion in this House, it will be discussion based, so far as Members of this House are concerned, on very serious consideration, and it will not be one of those Bills which are sometimes introduced in a great hurry, particularly in the autumn Session, and are not given adequate time for consideration.
I have been disappointed, like many other hon. Members, that there should have been this great delay in introducing
the Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that, because it has been a matter of discussion for a very long time as to why the Government have not found it possible to introduce the Bill. We do not know the reason, but the Minister has given us his assurance to-day that it is his intention to bring it in this Session. If a Minister gives an assurance of his intentions, and they are not carried out, Members generally find that there are steps to take to show the disapproval of his colleagues, but I am sure that the Minister will do his best to live up to his intentions in this matter. No one can say what will happen in three or six months' time, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will agree, but with the promise that we have had, I hope we shall have adequate time in the autumn to discuss the Bill, that it will not be discussed late at night for several weeks, and that, in order to facilitate its discussion, we may have it, if not in dummy form, then in draft form, so that it may be discussed during those months when we have more leisure than we can have during a busy autumn Session.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: In view of what the Minister has said, not only to-day, but especially when he made his first statement, on the Second Beading of the Bill, I should like to urge on the Opposition the fact that if their Amendment were carried, they would be doing more harm to the hardest-hit section of the unemployed, especially those in receipt of Poor Law relief and transitional payment, than they could possibly hope to do good. The Minister pointed out to the House that if the original Amendment were carried, it would mean the elimination of the extended benefit to ex-service pensioners and to men in receipt of workmen's compensation, and it would mean, he said, the complete revival of the "genuinely seeking work" condition.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is speaking to the Amendment which was moved on the Second Reading of the Bill rather than to the Amendment now before the Committee. If the present Amendment were adopted, none of the consequences to which he was calling attention would follow.

Mr. PIKE: I was attempting to point out that, if this Amendment were carried, it would have at the end of six months precisely the same effect as the other Amendment would have had. I only want to be assured that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment has no desire to bring about those losses in the small, but nevertheless invaluable, benefits which have been gained for a section of the unemployed workers. I am convinced that the Amendment will certainly have one effect. I can understand the Opposition absolutely wallowing in the idea of the Amendment being carried, because it will give them the opportunity, for which they always anxiously look, of bringing forward on the Floor of the House and in the country at every conceivable moment the grumbles that they consider to be the grumbles of the unemployed.
No one denies the right of the Opposition to claim that they alone can place the case of the unemployed before the country, but it is as well to realise that an Amendment of this description, if carried, would not add one iota to the solution of the problems of the unemployed people. All it would do would be to afford facilities for again raking over the arguments of the past and possibly the arguments of the moment, not for the purpose of improving the conditions of the unemployed, but for the purpose of belittling the Government who are making a genuine attempt to solve their problems. I am sure that the unemployed do not want attempts at a solution of their problems made in this direction. It would be better if the Opposition withdrew this Amendment and allowed the Government to bring in as speedy a presentation of the ultimate comprehensive Measure as they can. That would show some direct line of sympathy with the problems of the unemployed and would show some sincere determination on the part of the Opposition to assist the Government in the presentation of their comprehensive Measure. I ask the Government to oppose the Amendment with all their strength, and I am sure that in doing so they will have the support of the unemployed people.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. DOBBIE: I am surprised to hear the statements made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), for the Govern-
ment have had plenty of chance, time and opportunity to deal with this problem. This Bill asks the unemployed to wait for another year, but the unemployed have waited long enough. The Government were not returned for the purpose of playing about with the problem for close upon two years and then to introduce a Bill to extend the present system for another year. They were returned to power on a promise to find work for the people, to safeguard their savings, to bring about an era of prosperity, and to take all necessary measures for this purpose. The Government have carried on nothing but a policy of procrastination. Those of us who live among the unemployed know that they have been looking to the Government, but they are not looking now to this Government because they are filled with nothing but despair at the attitude and conduct of the Government towards them. I have a few human documents in my hand, and I want to associate myself with all that has been said about the means test. We want to bring it to an end as speedily as we can. I have here statements from people in my constituency showing that disability pensions of men are taken into consideration when dealing with the benefit of their sons and sons-in-law. I come from a constituency where the public assistance committee, with the approbation of the people, have refused to administer the means test, and where there is operating a commissioner whose inhuman conduct is backed by the Minister of Labour. When the trade unions and people in the constituency have asked the commissioner to receive a deputation to discuss the situation—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be raising a pure matter of administration. The proper time to do that will be on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. DOBBIE: I have not intervened much in the Debates. I may be new to the procedure of this House, but I am bringing here a message from destitute women, from hungry unemployed men who are demanding that I should speak on the Floor of the House of Commons. Whether I am doing it in a Parliamentary manner or not, I want to voice the opinion of the destitute and desperate
hungry men and women. Whether I may be within the Rules of Parliamentary procedure or not for the moment, I do not care.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must abide by the Rules of the House of Commons. He must raise this matter on the proper occasion.

Mr. KIRK WOOD: Do justly as lightly as you can, and do not be ready to jump up at the first chance.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) must not criticise the Chair.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. It is within your recollection that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) covered an extremely wide field, and certainly raised the question of destitution of men, women and children. He even referred to what is going to happen tomorrow in the Committee of the House. Surely the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) is entitled to give the same kind of reasons why he wants this Bill limited to six months in order that a new Bill may come forward.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) confined his arguments to giving instances which, if this Amendment were carried and a new Bill had to be brought in if six months, would, he hoped, be terminated by the new legislation. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) now appears to me to be raising a complaint on a matter of pure administration, and I pointed out to him that, if he wishes to make that complaint, he should do it on the Estimate later this evening. He will be quite in order to argue that this Bill should not be continued for more than six months because of certain conditions that exist.

Mr. LANSBURY: The point which my hon. Friend is endeavouring to make is that he wants an end put to the law which allows certain administrative acts to take place and because of the hardship which it inflicts on certain men, women and children. I respectfully suggest that he has a right to do that seeing that the hon. Member for Bridgeton based his whole argument on the same point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the hon. Member for Rother-
ham to be making that argument. I understood him to be raising a specific point with regard to administrative action. If he wishes to do that, as I believe other hon. Members wish to do it, the proper time is on the Supplementary Estimate, which is the time to criticise administration. I did not understand him to be bringing that argument forward as a reason why the Bill should continue for six months instead of one year.

Mr. DOBBIE: I want to do all I can to shorten the period of this Bill, and I was giving illustrations and reasons to support that. Among those reasons is the fact that we who live among these people, those of us whose lives are their lives, feel that we are well nigh the breaking point. I was endeavouring to give one or two illustrations to prove my point, and I wanted to give them from the people I represent and who sent me to deliver a message here, believing as they do that this House cares not for the position of the unemployed. I would ask the hon. Member for Attercliffe to come to my constituency with the story that he has told the Committee. I would ask hon. Members to remember that there are over 2,000,000 unemployed people in this country, and Parliamentary procedure is not going to save them. They are anxious for the Government and the House of Commons to give some demonstration that they are sympathetic and are endeavouring to help. I want to mention the case of a miner who is a widower living in my constituency and working five days a week. He receives 38s. 9d. a week. He works seven miles from where he lives, so that his travelling expenses are fairly large. He has a daughter of 15 who lives with him, four or five other children, and a son aged 21 who lives in the house. The son has had his unemployment pay reduced from 12s. 6d. to 5s.
We are asking the Government to reduce the period of this Bill to six months because we think that a year is too long for these conditions to exist. It will stand to the everlasting disgrace of the House if it rises for the Autumn Session while the unemployed are left in the condition in which they are at the present time. I want to make my protest against this cold, callous cruel and indifferent treatment of the well-dressed and well-fed people in this Assembly
towards the destitute and hungry people of this country.

Viscountess ASTOR: You do not look hungry.

Mr. DOBBIE: The well-dressed, rich people here may laugh and sneer at the unemployed. They will laugh and sneer at them once too often. Perhaps the Noble Lady will go to Plymouth and sneer in the face of the unemployed. She cannot help it; where there is no sense there is no feeling. I have numbers of instances of the treatment of men who from 1914 to 1918 were promised, because they rallied to the Colours, that certain conditions would be applied to them. Those instances are reasons why we want the period of this Bill to be shortened. The Government have power, knowledge and ability if they had the will to deal with the unemployed problem. There has not for a long time been a Government with such a large majority and that could work their will in the legislation of the country if they had the desire to do it. They have the capacity, the ability and the money, but they have not the desire. I am confident by the conduct of the Government, by the way in which they have wilfully violated every promise they made to trusting poor people, that at the end of 12 months we shall get a Bill similar in character to the one now before us, if not worse, which will certainly do very little to alleviate the condition of the unemployed. If there is a vestige of desire in the Government to do something to help the unemployed they will have no hesitation in accepting the Amendment, and agreeing not only that the period shall be six months, but that there shall be no Autumn Session. It will stand to the everlasting disgrace of this Assembly, as I will tell the Noble Lady again, if the rich, well-dressed people of this Assembly—

Viscountess ASTOR: Some of us do not drink champagne.

Mr. DOBBIE: It gives real pain to listen to her. She said she did not drink champagne. I do not know if she has any cause to tell us that she does not drink champagne. Some of us cannot afford to do it. I ask the Minister, in view of all the circumstances, in view of all the cases we have, in view of how hard the people of this country have
been hit, in view of the way in which the Commissioners are acting, treating people as if they were criminals—

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: And in view of the Anomalies Act.

Mr. DOBBIE: I am going to say here that I apologise for no man and no Government. There are some women you could not apologise for. I have said very little of previous Governments, because I want the men and women in this Assembly not to think so much about the Governments of the past but to remember their sacred responsibilities of the moment. It is no good talking about who was responsible for the Anomalies Act. The present Government are the Government of the day, and I ask them to remember that this is a desperate and serious question for many of us. Those of us who have had experience of unemployment, those of us who know what it is to be unemployed month after month, who know what it is to stand at the factory gate and to see some men picked and us left on the street, know the seriousness of the problem better than the right hon. Gentlemen in front of us. No matter who is responsible for the Anomalies Act, no matter who is responsible for the means test, hon. Members opposite must remember that they are responsible for the Government of the day, they are responsible for its continuity, they are responsible for the unemployment that is in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] Well, they are responsible for the system which exists to-day, a system which will always demand a great army of unemployed. We are not responsible for it, the unemployed are not responsible for it, but we say that every man under the existing system of society, which is not ours—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting very far from the Amendment.

Mr. DOBBIE: Well, I am glad you have not accused me of saying it is not true, anyway. What I want to say is that we are asking that the period should be six months instead of 12 months because of all the conditions I have described, and those of us who come from constituencies with a mandate from the people demand on behalf of the unemployed the right to work or the right to
live. Because of these things we say to the House, "Maintenance on a humane and decent basis and the abolition of your means test and your anomalies test." I want to see the Anomalies Bill removed. I would be prepared to give unemployed pay to anyone who is out of work, provided he is prepared to take his stand in the queue. The test should be, "Are they ready, able and willing to give service to the nation?" Because of these things I ask the House to back up and carry the Amendment.

5.6 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do hope I shall be permitted to answer this vigorous attack on the Government by hon. Members who feel so bitterly the plight of the unemployed, and the poverty, and misery, and want, and woe and who speak with such eloquence, particularly when they have got a pretty safe job themselves. But I am not going to dwell on that.

Mr. DOBBIE: My job is in Rotherham, and it is safe because the people want me.

Viscountess ASTOR: We have listened for years to these sham speeches.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If an hon. Member who is new to this House does not keep strictly within the Rules of Order we cannot make that an excuse for other hon. Members to follow that course. The Noble Lady has sat here quite long enough to know the Rules of Order.

Viscountess ASTOR: I did not realise that it was the hon. Member's maiden speech.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is his second speech.

Viscountess ASTOR: I only want to say that I am deeply grateful to the Government for giving us the assurance that they will bring in a Bill in the autumn. I think that ought to satisfy even the Members of the Opposition. We are grateful because we do not want the Government to be anything like the late Government. Some of us sat in this House for weeks and months hearing all these passionate appeals about unemployment and saw that Government sitting down and doing nothing. Many of us have been getting a little nervous about the National Government, and we are really relieved to see that at last
they have patched up what differences there may have been and are going to bring in an all-round scheme. We congratulate the Government on having at last made up their minds.

Mr. MAXTON: If they have.

Viscountess ASTOR: If they have; and we hope that the Opposition, now that they have made their speeches and "got it off their chest" will withdraw the Amendment and let us get on to the next, as there are so many things I want to speak about which I cannot deal with on this Amendment. May I speak on the next Amendment if I sit down now? There are one or two things which I really want to speak about, Captain Bourne, and I hope very much that if I do sit down now I shall be called on the next Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Wait for the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Bribery!

Viscountess ASTOR: No, it is not bribery. I may say that many of us would really back this Amendment if we had not got that pledge about the Bill, although we think it is a perfectly useless Amendment. We do not think it would do any good, but we would have backed it to ginger up the Government and to show them that the Members behind them are just as much interested, and possibly far more interested, in the unemployed than the people who have gone on talking about them without using any thought. They have made speech after speech for 15 years and not used their heads, as far as we can see. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to say, "Hear, hear." I should think he is probably the worst offender in the whole House. All he did when he got in was to provide a few paddling pools for kiddies.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 41.

Division No. 233.]
AYES.
[5.10 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Christie, James Archibald
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Clarry, Reginald George
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Albery, Irving James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ganzonl, Sir John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Glucksteln, Louis Halle


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
God. Sir Park


Apsley, Lord
colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cooke, Douglas
Gower, Sir Robert


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth. Sutton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Graves, Marjorle


Balfour, Capt. Harold (1. of Thanet)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Greene, William P. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Griffith, F. Kingslay (Mlddlesbro,W).


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grigg, Sir Edward


Bernays, Robert
Cross. R. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bird, Ernest Roy (York, Skipton)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Blindell, James
Davles, Maj.Geo. P. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Hales, Harold K.


Borodale, Viscount
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hamilton, sir George (Ilford)


Bossom, A. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hanbury, Cecil


Boulton, W. w.
Denville, Alfred
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dickie, John P.
Harbord, Arthur


Briant, Frank
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hartington, Marquess of


Broadbent. Colonel John
Donner, P. W.
Hartland, George A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Doran, Edward
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Drewe, Cedrle
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duggan, Hubert John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Dunglass, Lord
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Holdsworth, Herbert


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elmley, Viscount
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Carver, Major William H.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Castlereagh, Viscount
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hornby, Frank


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essax, Roml'u)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Iveagh, Countess of
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Jamieson, Douglas
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Johnston, J.W. (Clackmannan)
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Peat, Charles U.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stones, James


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Petherick. M.
Storey, Samuel


Ker, J. Campbell
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strauss, Edward A.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pike, Cecil F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Kimball, Lawrence
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pybus, Percy John
Templeton, William P.


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thompson, Luke


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Liddall, Walter S.
Rankin, Robert
Train, John


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Rea, Walter Russell
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lockwood, John C (Hackney, C.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Vaughan-M organ, Sir Kenyon


Mabane, William
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


McKeag, William
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wells, Sydney Richard


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Weymouth, Viscount


Maclay. Hon. Joseph Paton
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Salt, Edward W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Womersley, Walter James


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Martin, Thomas B.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Skelton, Archibald Noel



Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Slater, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Milne, Charles
Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Lord Erskine.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobble, William
Leonard, William



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.18 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: During the Debate upon the Second Reading, statements were made by the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the position of the unemployed. I wish to ask the Minister what his intentions are in regard to the regulations that have been issued and that
have been operated by his Department under the Anomalies Act as well as in regard to the means test. The Minister has been good enough to furnish Members of the Committee with the report which he promised upon the operation of the regulations made under the Anomalies Act, and in an appendix he provides what I think I am right in calling the consolidated decisions or the codified decisions of the umpire. Those decisions were published in the sixth
pamphlet for last year, the June issue, and the Minister and his Department had it in front of them for 12 months. While it gives the codified decisions, and includes the umpire's previous decisions upon other decision, given by him in November, 1931, and presented in pamphlet 11, covers quite a number of the points made in the codified decisions.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has noticed that the umpire refers to a point which I made last Wednesday, pointing out practically what the Minister had in mind and what the Royal Commission and the Advisory Committee had in mind. The Minister will find that in the November pamphlet for 1931, on page 243 of the yearly volume. In that decision, which is a codified decision also, dealing with practically the same question, the umpire argues the point rather more clearly than he does in the latest codified decisions. He points out that the Minister declined to accept a suggestion of the Advisory Committee because the Minister preferred to accept the wording of the Royal Commission. The interpretation placed upon the wording in the Report of the Royal Commission which the Minister selected, as was pointed out by the Majority and Minority Reports of the Commission, has caused many married women to be refused unemployment benefit, though, in the considered opinion of the Royal Commission, they were justly entitled to benefit.
The Minister has had the decisions before him for all these months, since November, 1931, when he issued the first codified decisions, and June, 1932, when he brought out the final decisions. The General Council of the Trades Union Congress Have brought to his notice the hardships of decisions that have been carried out owing to the regulations which have been issued, and requests have been made to him to reconsider those regulations. The General Council have asked him to call together his advisory committee in order to consider fresh draft regulations. The Minister has left it for rather a long time. The advisory committee stated that he ought to consider, and they were agreed to pass, a certain regulation or part of a regulation. If that part of a regulation operated harshly, the Minister ought to have called the advisory committee together in order to draft a fresh regulation. The Minister
has not thought it worth his while, or probably has not had it brought to his notice, that the advisory committee should be called together to consider a new regulation.
It is too late to make any complaints, but now that we are being asked for an extension of the Act in order that we may get round a particular corner, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring the advisory committee, set up under the Act, together again, and in the light of the experience which his Department has, and in view of the codified decisions of the Umpire, to whom all cases sent by courts of referees and insurance officers are finally referred and who has the last word, above which even the Minister of Labour cannot go, to frame further regulations to remove the hardships and the inconsistencies to which attention has been drawn by the advisory committee and by the majority and minority reports of the commission. These matters should be put right, so that there may be no fear of any repetition of that situation in the course of the next 12 months, after the operation of the Act is extended.
On Friday last, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made a reference to the advantages which the reduced rates of benefit conferred upon the people, over what they received prior to the reduction in the rates of benefit by the National Government. He spoke of the single man with 15s. 3d., and said that that was now worth actually more than the 18s. which he was previously receiving, owing to the fall in the cost of living figures. I do not want to debate whether or not the amount of wages or benefit paid to a worker or to an unemployed worker should be based on the cost of living figures, but to my mind that is not a proper way of assessing human values. The cost of living figures may be all very well in assessing the value of livestock, but not in assessing the value of human beings, and, while it may be accurate to say that the 15s. 3d. which the single man now receives under the various Measures of the National Government would purchase more than the 18s. which previously was the unemployment benefit, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour generally—not individually—would consider
this question from a more human point of view.
After all, the value of human beings, and particularly unemployed men and women, should not be assessed on a livestock principle. Man is surely more to society, he is surely more, or ought to be, in the eyes of his fellows than the ox in the stall or the horse in the stable, and I hope that, in any fresh Regulations which may be framed, a little more of the human element will be introduced, a little more of the desire to see that those who are to receive the unemployment benefit to which the Regulations will entitle them will get at least sufficient through those Regulations to meet their human needs, and that the matter will be considered, not on the basis of the cost of living figures as indicated generally by Government Departments, but from the human side, and that the Regulations will be framed in such a manner as to enable the Minister to come down without fear of attack from any quarter of the House because of the inhuman way in which the previous Regulations have operated with regard to certain of those who are unemployed.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This Clause is really the operative part of the Bill. It does two things. In the first place, it continues the Act of 1930, passed by the Labour Government, with the subsequent modifications of it which were brought in by the National Government. As the Minister has explained, that carried with it the abolition of the "not genuinely seeking work" provision. While, however, this Clause seeks to carry into effect the Act of 1930, one cannot dismiss from one's mind the fact that that Act was modified considerably by Order in Council, and, while it is being continued, it is only continued so far as certain parts of it are concerned; in other vital parts it is not the Act that was passed in 1930. The Clause also seeks to continue the Act, passed by the Labour Government in 1931, which is known as the Anomalies Act. I propose to try to examine the real effects of the Clause, and, therefore, of the Bill itself. I desire, as dispassionately as I can, to examine the effects of these Measures.
The Act of 1930 abolished the "not genuinely seeking work" provision, and
it was stated by the Minister that interference with the Act of 1930 would involve interference also with that part of the Act which abolished the "not genuinely seeking work" provision. That statement, so far, has not been answered. It is true that, if we did not continue the Act of 1930, the "not genuinely seeking work" provision would possibly, as a consequence, be reimposed, but there are two simple and direct answers on that point. The great majority of the people who were disallowed benefit under the "not genuinely seeking work" provision belong to two groups. First, there are those who have ceased to have 30 stamps, and who, consequently, are outside the insurance limit; and, secondly, there are the classes, like married women, who are now dealt with by the Anomalies Act. Those two groups are now, for all practical purposes, dealt with by other agencies.
Take the case of the man who has been out of work for some time. It is true that the "not genuinely seeking work" test is not applied in his case, but a new test has been substituted, namely, the test as to whether he is normally in insurable employment. It was pointed out in the course of the Debate that the increase which had taken place in the number who were not normally in insurable employment took place the moment the "not genuinely seeking work" provision was abolished. Even under the Labour Government, the moment that provision was abolished the number of those who were regarded as not being normally in insurable employment increased almost two-fold. No new Act had been passed, but those who were outside the 30 contributions qualification were immediately dealt with as not being normally in insurable employment and, consequently, those people are not affected. The other class consists in the main of those who are now being dealt with under the Anomalies Act. Consequently, the value which the "not genuinely seeking work" abolition had at the time when it was passed has gradually disappeared, and the test as to being normally in insurable employment has been used as a substitute for it. That is proved by the rapid increase in the numbers who are regarded as not being normally in insurable employment.
The reply of the Minister is that this point is dealt with by the legal autho-
rities—that he has no control over it, but that it is done by the Umpire and the courts of referees, who are constituted by Act of Parliament independently of the Minister. That, however, is only an answer to those who do not know unemployment insurance. It is a simple answer to give to those who come to the House of Commons and ask questions, but it is no answer to those who understand the administration. The Minister knows that no case can go before a court of referees unless it is brought there by the insurance officer, and the insurance officer is the Minister's servant. The insurance officer acts as the Minister's employe, and the Minister is directly responsible for every insurance officer in the country. If I may, with my limited knowledge of law, venture to use a legal parallel, a man is only prosecuted, either in Scotland or in England, if there is somebody to prosecute him. If nobody makes a charge against him, then, even though he may have done the crime, there is no prosecution.
In the same way, the court of referees cannot adjudicate on a case unless the Minister's servant brings it before them, and, consequently, the Minister in the first place is responsible because, it is his servants, who are directly under his authority, who bring cases before the courts of referees; and, more than that, to a certain extent they frame the indictment. At the foot of the form for such cases there are questions as to what are the prospects of work, how it is being sought, and what the person is doing. The insurance officer passes his comments on those matters, and thus frames the indictment, and, consequently, the whole claim is prejudged, or, at any rate, if that is putting it too high, it would not be dealt with but for the action of the Minister's servant. Consequently, if the Minister says that these matters are outside his jurisdiction, he ignores the fact that it is his servants who are directly under his control, guidance and authority who place the unemployed in the position in which they are.
While the Act of 1930 was comparatively beneficent in the sense that it increased the amounts, those amounts have now been decreased, and it has lost its beneficence to that extent. Moreover, while it was beneficent in the sense that it abolished the "not-genuinely-seeking-
work" provision, the device that has since been adopted has to a large extent nullified its usefulness in that respect. With regard to the Anomalies Act, I am not going over the ground that I covered on Friday last, but I want to try to make out what I think is the reasoned case for the rejection of this Bill. An hon. Gentleman speaking from the front Labour bench made what I considered to be a very manly speech in defence of the Act. He said that he had walked through the Lobbies and voted for it, and would do so again. I do not mind him saying that, but I think it is a terrible thing for a Labour man to confess. Hitherto the Labour movement has stood for this simple test that, if a man was prepared to stand in a queue, he was entitled to decent maintenance. On Friday Members were annoyed with me because I said I was bitter. I am bitter. I have defended more people at Employment Exchanges in the last five years than almost any other person. Never one day when Parliament was not sitting was I absent from the Exchange. [Interruption.] I will take the hon. Member's figures and, if I am wrong, I will apologise, but my type of case must be different from mining division cases and, when one comes across them, one must feel bitter. My kith and kin, terribly poor people, have been cut off benefit and I am entitled to be angry. When a man votes Tory, he knows that he is going to be robbed, and never has the Tory party disappointed him.
I have two or three cases which I should like hon. Members to face up to. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) and I were approached by a number of decent men who were not spongers, almost every one of them served in the War. They were lamplighters. They lit the lamps in winter, but not in summer. They get 30 weeks' work every year. At the end of the time they cannot get any more work, and they get no benefit. If they were pattern makers or miners they would get 26 weeks' standard benefit. Why should they be refused benefit? What crime have they committed? They were clean and tidy. Some of them were Communists, some were Labour and some were Tory. One of them had a pension of £l a week and he had to live on it. He got no public assistance until someone intervened on his behalf. It is shocking that they
should be refused. I have a letter here from a decent woman in a town that was represented by the Lord Privy Seal in the Labour Government. I am angry because the Lord Privy Seal in the Labour Government backed the Bill. The writer says:
I do not reside in your division, but I should esteem it a great help if you would give me advice. For 13 years I have been employed by the Calico Printers, but they shut down in Lennox-town in 1929. As I was unable to obtain insurable work of any kind during the first year I thought I would go further afield, so the following year I went to Rothesay of my own accord and, although inexperienced, I got a job in a boarding house there. The work was hard, but I preferred it to nothing at all. I stayed there from June till October, 16 weeks in all, then I was sent home. I tried my very best to get work in Glasgow as a tea-room waitress. I was then experienced, but, although I was promised first chance at a few places, I was still unemployed five months later, when my employer sent for me in March. Being only too glad to take anything, I went back and worked for 28 weeks and got stamps. My stamps for two years were 44–14 above the insurance qualification. I came home in October last. I applied for unemployment benefit, and I was summoned to a court of referees and turned down as a seasonal worker.
She then got leave to appeal to the umpire. I go to the umpire regularly. He has stretched the Act as humanly as ever a man could, and it is not fair to say it is administered badly. It is a lie about the umpires. The umpire stretched it almost to its limit. He decided in her favour and gave her benefit. Now she writes me:
I have been asked to go hack again and my chum who has been three years out, a year longer than me, has been turned down by the umpire and the court of referees.
Three years raises the presumption that she is now a permanent seasonal worker. She asks me:
What shall I do? Most of the girls who worked with me at the print works have done no work since. Almost every one of them is drawing benefit. I thought it preferable to work 28 weeks in the year than to be idle for 52. Not so very long ago the excuse given for disallowing claims was not genuinely seeking work, and now, because of seeking and taking the first job I can get, I am to be penalised.
I have seen this woman. When she was unemployed and had the stamps, she got 3s. public assistance instead of 13s. 6d. How is she to live? It was done by a woman who had £2,000 a year. It was cruel to rob her. You can say what you
like about me, I am angry. [Interruption.] It may be that I have got twisted about. I have seen the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) angrier for less.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I have had several cases like the one that the hon. Member has mentioned before the court of referees in Govan. I had seven cases in one day.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That only proves that the hon. Member is a finer advocate before the court of referees than I am, but I should like to see his seven cases.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the hon. Member cares to come down to Govan on Friday night, I will give him the cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You have made a statement in the House of Commons.

Mr. MACLEAN: I keep the papers there.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It does not alter the argument. If someone can get an able advocate at one place, it only makes my indictment stronger. If a person can get it at Govan, why should not they get it at Dundee or anywhere else? [Interruption.] That leaves me cold.

Mr. McENTEE: Buy yourself a halo.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not accept a trade union subsidy and sit up all night to vote for them being robbed like you did. I am not the only one. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), when congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was cheered louder by the Tories than ever I got cheered. I have had no trip to Canada yet. All I get is a free railway pass from Glasgow to London. If it costs more than that, my trips stop.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to me said, "You would not give benefit to herring girls." May I submit to him two considerations which are unanswerable. He says that the herring workers and others work only for the season and then become a drag upon the fund. If the Parliamentary Secretary argues on that basis, I would remind him that the question does not only apply to the herring or fishing industry, but to any industry. Many persons are contributing to the fund far less than they are receiving out of it, but that is not their fault. If one takes the case of the fisher girls, on the average, over the last 10 years,
taking the industry as a whole, they have contributed more than certain other industries. This is only an argument as to why the miners should get more. Anyone who knows the mining industry will realise that because of the widespread unemployment in the mines, miners have drawn far more out of the fund than it can stand. That is not a reason why they should be refused, but a reason why they should get more. When industrial benefit is refused to the fisher girls, how are they to live and maintain themselves or be maintained? "Oh," says the Minister, "We are running this thing on an actuarial Basis." Actuarially seasonal workers have a stronger ease than most of the other workers. If the miners were dealt with on an actuarial basis, they would have received nothing years and years ago. Consequently, the financial argument against these people collapses.
Whatever point of view may be argued, the need for a review of the provisions, particularly with regard to seasonal workers, is long overdue. Women who take up seasonal work in hotels and other places have often to live under inferior conditions, accept inferior food and do the most menial tasks. I would say to the Minister and those responsible that the Act calls for repeal. I know that one argument may be that, after all, there are only about 40,000 persons who are being refused benefit. It may be that there are a small number, but every time I look at those smart young women who have no income coming in, I feel horror-stricken to think that women should be in such a position. It may be that they remain good—and they do— but it is not fair and right. I have seen a great improvement in my lifetime in the health and physique of women and children. But whether we like it or not, women will be dressed, and they have a right to be dressed, and if they are not given an income, they will still dress. The House of Commons ought to see to it that every decent unemployed woman who wishes to work and maintain herself is left with an income to keep body and soul together.
I frame my indictment against this Clause because I think that the Act continues the worst features of public life. I shall never cease, as long as I have a voice in this House, to urge the repeal of any Clause which has this effect. The
Minister may try to meet my argument about seasonal workers by saying that the umpires have decided something or other in their favour, but the fact is that 44,000 have been refused benefit. They are not married women, and almost ail of them are without income. The House of Commons ought to face up to the position. The Act of 1930 should not be continued, because it has now ceased to have the advantages it had when it was first put into operation. The amounts have been reduced, conditions have been made worse and periods of benefit curtailed. The Act of 1930 is merely a carcase without any of the real fibre in it. The present Clause should be rejected, as it would then be a direct instruction to the Government to repeal the Anomalies Act and to remodel all the Insurance Acts. To-day there is hardly a man or woman in Britain who can follow anything in unemployment insurance legislation, so complicated and difficult have the Acts become. We ought to reject the whole business. It is no use making a human or a personal appeal to the Government, as they are almost beyond recall in these matters, but I hope that there will be sufficient humanity, honour and justice among the rank and file of the Members of the House to see to it that those people are properly, justly and sanely dealt with.

6.8 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I intervene at this stage because I want to deal with the points which have been raised both by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on the Anomalies Act. The last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals was an appeal to repeal the Anomalies Act altogether. I say at once that I cannot do that, and I am not going to do it. I am certainly not going to offer any opinion as to who is the better advocate before the Umpire—the hon. Member for Gorbals or the hon. Member for Govan. I should think that they are both pretty good. I was very glad to hear the tribute paid to the complete impartiality of the Umpire.
I will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan on the regulations dealing with married women. I do not propose to repeat what I said the other day when I went into the case of
the Anomalies Act as to why it was passed. I want to deal with the regulations which were made under it. The report of the Advisory Committee to which I submitted draft regulations contains the following passages to which I am going to refer. In paragraph 18 the report referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission:
That a married woman should be called upon to show"—
and this is in inverted commas—
' that having regard to her industrial experience and to the industrial circumstances of the district she can reasonably expect to obtain insurable employment in the district in which she is residing.'
It goes on:
We would call special attention to the words 'having regard to …the industrial circumstances of the district.'
In paragraph 20 they said:
If on the other hand, the intention of the Royal Commission or of Parliament was not to disqualify for benefit married women whose inability to obtain insurable work is due to industrial depression, it might be in accordance with that intention to substitute for the words 'industrial circumstances of the district in which she resides'"—
which were the words in my draft—
the words industrial practice of the district in which she resides, in the occupation in which she has been accustomed to work.'
The difference between those two alternatives is that, in the first case, you can take into account the industrial circumstances of the district, that is to say, you can take into account whether there is trade depression, whether trade is good or had, and so on. In the second case you take into account merely the industrial practice of the district in the occupation in which she has been accustomed to work. That means that you take into account the practice in the district, and whether women are in fact usually employed in the industry after they have married. The next paragraph in the report is one to which I want to call special attention. The committee said:
In view of the close balance of argument, however, we have thought it right to leave the matter without a definite recommendation to the decision of the Minister. The actual decision in the first instance is perhaps less important than that the working of this regulation in particular, however phrased, should be closely watched with a view to revision if it appears after
experience either unduly lax or unduly harsh.
What the advisory committee did, without making any definite recommendation at all, was to point out those two alternatives. The alternative I have chosen was the first one. I put in the regulation the words:
Industrial circumstances of the district in which she resides
because those were the words which were recommended in the first report of the Royal Commission. That is the regulation to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception. There can be no doubt about it at all. I would point out that the minority report of the Royal Commission, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Govan on more than one occasion, in paragraph 193, on page 469, says:
The Advisory Committee did not recommend any change in the draft Regulations that were submitted to them. They made it clear in their Report that they recognised the ambiguity of the phrase 'industrial circumstances' and that there was some difference of opinion on the Committee as to how it should be interpreted, i.e., whether 'industrial practice' was intended or whether such circumstances as a depressed state of trade were included; but in view of the close balance of argument they 'thought it right to leave the matter without a definite recommendation to the decision of the Minister.'
The Committee will observe there was no recommendation on this point. What the advisory committee did was to offer me an alternative between two choices, and I have already stated the choice that I have accepted and the reason for my doing so. It was stated in the report of the advisory committee that:
the working of this regulation in particular, however phrased, should be closely watched with a view to revision if it appears after experience either unduly lax or unduly harsh.
I have watched the working of this condition very carefully and have done my best to come to a conclusion which of the two alternatives is really fairer to the married women, and one which I could very properly accept, and the conclusion that I have come to is that I shall put before the advisory committee for their views an alternative regulation which, I hope, would meet the very point raised by the hon. Member for Govan and which would take into account the
industrial practice of the district in which she resides, in the occupation in which she has been accustomed to work.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the two codified decisions of the umpire? I think he would find that they would be some help to the advisory committee in expressing their views if he passed those two decisions on to them.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am going to put a regulation before the advisory committee for their views, and I have drafted that after taking into account the decision of the umpire. I do not want the Committee to bind me to the precise form of words which I am about to read, because it has only been roughly drafted. The new regulation would read something like this:
That having regard to all the circumstances of her case and particularly to her industrial experience and the industrial circumstances of the district in which she resides she can reasonably expect to obtain insurable employment in that district or could reasonably have expected to obtain it but for an increase in trade depression since she was last regularly employed.
That is an attempt to meet the very point which the hon. Member for Govan has raised and in the light of the experience that I have got it would, I think, be fairer to the married women than the existing regulation.
One word on the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals. He said that in practice the abolition of the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition has been offset by the not-normally-seeking insurable work condition which, in practice he says has the same effect as the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause. I have gone into this matter very carefully, and there is a decision of the umpire which makes it clear that in the umpire's view that is not a true construction to place upon the Act.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman will meet my point if he will give me any explanation of the alarming increase under the not-normally-seeking work far outweighing the volume in the increase in unemployment.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member went a little further than that. He seemed to suggest that the insurance officers were disregarding the intention of the Act, possibly in ignorance of the umpire's decision, which really makes it clear that there is a distinction between
the not normally and the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause. I am taking steps to bring once again to the notice of the insurance officers what the umpire's decision is, so that they shall have no doubt about it. That will ensure that the umpire's decision which makes this point quite clear will be brought to the notice of every court of referees and of those concerned in every district. I think that when that is done, the view that there is no difference in practice between the not-genuinely-seeking-work and the not-normally-seeking-work provision will be found no longer to exist.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I desire to put two or three points, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to reply to them later. The committee has had an explanation given by the Minister of a new regulation dealing with married women which is to be issued under the Anomalies Act. I represent a constituency in Lancashire, and it has been brought to my notice that married women employed in the textile and bleaching industry, in particular are not in their opinion securing fair play and that is the opinion of their trade union too, under the regulation as it stands. Any Member of the Committee who has followed the discussion in the public Press with regard to the administration of the Anomalies Act, and especially the book written by Lord Hewart some time ago, will remember, that a great deal of legislation in this country—if I may call it by the name of legislation—is effected nowadays by the Departments. I would refer for illustration to the National Health Insurance Act. The administration of benefits under that Act is at present carried out very much more by regulations issued by the Minister of Health than by Acts of Parliament. Therefore, I want the Committee to disabuse its mind as to the actual effect of any Act of Parliament as such.
We are dealing under the Anomalies Act to-day not so much with the provisions of the Act itself as the regulations issued by the Minister under that Act. I should like to know at what date it is expected the new regulation will operate? I have reason to ask that question because the Minister himself a week ago made a
statement which was nearly contradicted by the Parliamentary Secretary last Friday. I will read the two statements to show that Ministers in this Government are not in complete harmony on everything. It may have been due to a slip, but it is worth while pointing out. The Minister himself said:
In one or two respects I think that those regulations might be modified, and I am proposing—I have to submit the proposals to the Advisory Committee—to submit certain revised regulations dealing with two of the classes of persons, seasonal workers and married women. I shall get a report in due course from the Advisory Committee who will have considered the regulations which I am proposing to make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1933; col. 183, Vol. 279.]
When the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the same point last Friday he said:
My right hon. Friend has promised that before introducing the new Bill he is going to call the Advisory Committee together, and this question of the married women will be one of those which will be submitted to them to see whether they can in the light of experience advise on any altered Regulation."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 455, Vol. 279.]
We have been told this afternoon that the new Bill will be brought before Parliament but not until October or November. Surely the House of Commons is entitled, in view of the promise made by the Minister last week and this afternoon, that this new regulation which will modify the administration of benefits to married women under the Anomalies Act shall come into operation as soon as possible.
I was in Parliament when the Anomalies Bill passed through all its stages, and I well remember the arguments put forth in favour of it. As secretary of an approved society I would say that under the National Health Insurance scheme there will be probably many more anomalies than under the unemployment scheme, but nobody seems to bother about those anomalies. There are anomalies in all walks of life, but the biggest anomaly of all that I have seen in my Parliamentary experience is the coming into existence of this Government. One argument in favour of the Anomalies Act was this, that it was proved right up to the hilt that some employers of labour were actually arranging their days of work per week with their employés in
order to exploit the unemployment insurance fund. That was done. Let me give another instance that came within my personal knowledge. In some large shops in London, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow, in Liverpool and Manchester in particular, they have for years been employing women on Friday evenings and Saturdays only, married women whose husbands are at work. Before the passage of the Anomalies Act those women were insured and entitled to unemployment insurance benefit as a result of their week-end employment. That was an anomaly without any doubt.
Let me give another case. It was said at the time, and it was also quoted in the Debate last Wednesday, that men were engaged packing newspapers at the week-end, working from 30 to 35 hours at a stretch and earning £3, £4 or £5, and they were also insured and entitled before the passing of the Anomalies Act to get unemployment benefit for the rest of the week. I say on my own behalf, as one who has taken some interest in social insurance in this country and abroad, that I can never conceive that insurance will ever cover cases such as I have mentioned now excluded under the Anomalies Act. I do not think that any Government of any political colour in any country will ever bring people of that kind under any unemployment insurance scheme. Having said that, however, let me put the other side of the case. The Anomalies Act was passed to provide the Minister with power to make regulations and in issuing those regulations he has brought within his net some persons who were never intended to be covered by the original Act. When you deal with married women employed at the weekend in large shops, you are dealing with an anomaly, but when you come to the thousands of women in Lancashire, engaged in the textile and bleaching industries in particular, you are dealing with an entirely different proposition. When a woman marries in Lancashire, it is the custom of the county, the custom of the textile trade and the custom of the district that she follows her occupation after she is married. The Ministry has apparently lumped all the married women into one category although they differ fundamentally as between one county and another. What is the use of putting into the same category for the purpose of this regulation, married
women fruit pickers in the Evesham Valley—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The treatment is not similar.

Mr. DAVIES: The treatment meted out to married women in Lancashire under this regulation is very similar.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member is under a slight misapprehension. There is a regulation governing married women generally; he is talking about a special regulation dealing with people who only normally work two days per week, and that applies to single women as well as to married women.

Mr. DAVIES: Whatever may be the difference in treatment, the Lancashire textile trade unions have been complaining for some time past that married women are being treated in a different way from what was intended by the Anomalies Act. We are a little alarmed at the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave the other day as to the refusal and disallowance of claims for benefit under the Anomalies Act. In the case of seasonal workers the disallowed claims were 45,000; in the case of persons normally working part only of the week, 4,998; and in the case of married women, 210,286. No one can tell how many of the 210,286 married women are situated in one area, but I am assured that a considerable part of them live in Lancashire and ordinarily follow their occupation in the textile industry. Before we leave this subject of the administration of the Anomalies Act and the new Regulation which is to be issued, I want to ask when the new Regulation will become operative, and whether special consideration will be given to Lancashire—[Interruption]—in view of the fact that for at least half a century the custom has been for women after their marriage to follow their employment in the textile trades. The whole standard of life of the family is determined by the fact that they follow their employment after marriage.

Mr. PIKE: Did the hon. Member's party know that when they introduced the Anomalies Bill?

Mr. DAVIES: The passing of the Anomalies Act has nothing to do with the
Regulations which are made under it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh as much as they like. Let me give a concrete case. What would be the use of blaming the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who introduced the National Health Insurance scheme in 1911, because this Government have issued a Regulation depriving thousands of insured people of medical benefit at the end of this year? It would be just as silly. You cannot blame a Government for passing an Act of Parliament, and then throw the whole of the onus on that Government because a succeeding Government issues Regulations which are contrary to the spirit of the Act. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members do not like it, but the fact remains that the Anomalies Act was never designed to treat certain married women, by Regulation, in the way that this Government is treating them under the present Regulations. If that statement is not correct, how is it that the Minister of Labour is now saying that the harsh Regulations which he himself put into operation must be altered and modified in favour of married women? I support the deletion of the Clause.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: My sole object in rising in to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me a little information with regard to one class of married women and the effect the proposed new regulation will have in regard to them. There is in some trades a class of married women who form a sort of pool of labour, and are only employed by the trade on the understanding that they are the first to be taken off and the last to be taken on. In times of normal trade they receive a certain amount of employment each year, but in times of trade depression they are unemployed for a considerable portion of the year. In times of depression these women have little or no chance of obtaining work, and I should like to know to what extent the proposed new regulation will apply to those women who are the first to be turned off and the last to be taken on.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 282 Noes, 43.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[6.38 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francls Dyke
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKeag, William


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McKle, John Hamilton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Albery, Irving James
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mannlngham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baillie, Sir Adrlan W. M.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Martin, Thomas B.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Milne, Charles


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Bernays, Robert
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morelng, Adrian C.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shephard


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Greene. William P. C.
Moss, Captain H. J,


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nunn, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Patrick, Colin M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pearson, William G.


Briant, Frank
Hales, Harold K.
Peat, Charles U.



Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Petherick, M.


Brown,Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)




Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Sir Basll E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Buchan, John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada



Harbord, Arthur
Pike, Cecil F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.
Hartland, George A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pybus, Percy John


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Carver, Major William H.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hore-Belisha, Lesile
Rankin. Robert


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hornby, Frank
Rea, Waiter Russell


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Horsbrugh Florence
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Christie, James Archibald
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Robinson, John Roland


Cobb, Sir Cyrll
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Colfox, Major William Philip
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jamleson, Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Janner, Barnett
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cooke, Douglas
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rutherford. Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salt, Edward W.


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Crossley, A. C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Selley, Harry R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kimball, Lawrence
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Law, Sir Alfred
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Slater, John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees-Jones, John
Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Denville. Alfred
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dickle, John P.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smithers, Waldron


Drewe, Cedrle
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Duggan, Hubert John
Mabane, William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Eastwood, John Francls
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)




Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Train, John
Weymouth, Viscount


Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Stones, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Strauss, Edward A.
Wallace, John (Dunferailne)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col- Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Watlsend)
Withers, Sir John James


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Templeton, William P.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Thompson, Luke
Wedderburn.Henry James Scrymgeour-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-




Jones.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cowan, D. M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobble, William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —




Mr.John and Mr.Graham.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2 (Short title, citation and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House proceeded to a Division —

Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, three Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £22,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, in-
cluding sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court: Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Government in this Supplementary Estimate are asking for £22,500,000 more than the original Estimate. I am moving the reduction because we on this side of the Committee believe that if those who are to be catered for under the Unemployment Insurance Acts are looked after as they should be looked after, this Vote should be much bigger than it is. The original Estimate was for £53,500,000. Now the Government ask for a further £22,500,000, making a total of £76,000,000. When we are discussing financial matters in connection with the Ministry of Labour I sometimes wonder where are all the gallant forces that used to face the Labour Government when that Government asked for a few million pounds extra for the unemployed. In those days we were told continually that if there had been a really efficient Government in charge the one thing they would do would be to balance the Unemployment
Insurance Fund. I sometimes wonder, in view of what has happened since, at the absence of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).
Whenever the Ministry of Labour in the Labour Government came here for an extra grant, the Opposition benches were packed. The only time when there was life and punch in unemployment Debates was during the time of the Labour Government. The present Minister of Labour and his Conservative predecessor in that office were far more gentle and far more cautious than the people who did not know the Ministry of Labour. Other Members used to give us frowning looks, and point menacing fingers, and talk about waste, and the need for balancing the fund. But look at what has happened since. The people who have had more than 26 weeks benefit have been cut off benefit, and have been subjected to a destitution test, for that is what the means test is. There have been reductions under the Anomalies Act. Many people who are now on the means test have been cut away from the fund proper. There have been many people cut off who are yet on the unemployment registers. There are a quarter of a million people more on the Poor Law. They have been cut off. The fund has been shorn of nearly half its weight. Still the Government have to make a deficiency grant in order that the fund may balance.
As a Labour Government we borrowed. We were told that the National Government would not borrow, that they would make ends meet. I think we are entitled to dig the Government in the ribs just a little, for after they have cut one-half of the unemployed off the fund they still find that they cannot balance the fund. They are still making their grants for what are called transitional payments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on Friday made a speech which was very clever, but, if I may say so, it was hardly up to the best traditions of the young Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman is hardly as advanced as the younger Conservatives. My impression of that speech was that it suggested that everything was quite all right, that things were improving, and that the stories we are told about want up and down the country have no basis in fact.
The hon. Gentleman really ran away from the whole case.
To-day the Government are asking for a Supplementary Estimate for transitional payments. The original grant was £31,000,000. In spite of these grants, the destitution tests having been applied, we say that there is a great mass of want reaching to the point as we would put it in these days, sometimes of starvation. To some points I raised, about certain cases in Newcastle, the hon. Gentleman replied by simply giving them a negative. He cannot run away from facts in that manner. If he does, I warn the House that there is a body of medical opinion growing up in this country which feels it is in honour bound to state the facts. Quite a large number of people are living on less than 3s. a week per person for food. That is evidence brought forward from plain and cold investigation of the facts of families' incomes, and such points as I raised cannot be repudiated merely by yea or nay on the part of a Departmental chief, whoever he may be. The fact remains that that is the condition of great masses of our people. I refer to this again only because it really struck me on Friday that the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking for the Ministry of Labour, was either too eager to make debating points, or did not appreciate what was happening in the country.
His own chief gave the other day what seems to me, from the point of view of a measure of the standard of living as compared with a year or two ago, to be almost conclusive facts. The Minister said that during the last few years there had been drawn within the ambit of the register men who had never before been out of work. The Minister says—and it is a well known fact—that men are now registered as unemployed who have never registered before. That cannot be denied. It cannot therefore be denied that a portion of the population is worse off than ever before.
The number of those who have been on the register for a considerable period also tends to increase. That is a well-known fact. It is no exaggeration to say that two or three years ago the number of these was about 100,000. I am not making this as a party point. So grave is this matter that the right thing is to get as accurate an estimate as one can of the position in this country, because no
graver danger can arise than that the physique and moral of the people should be undermined without the country appreciating what is happening until the danger is right upon us. About two or three years ago the number off work for a year or more was about 100,000. Today it is 500,000. I ask the Committee to mark that fact. These are men and women who have been off work for 12 months or more already, and they have increased by two or three to one as compared with a few years ago. Those 500,000 people represent a good part of our population. Those people certainly must be worse off.
It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to give figures as to the cost of living. They are very difficult to handle. Everybody knows the old saying that you can do anything with figures. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for a couple of years, and I did not pay any attention whatever to the wage figures that come from the Ministry of Labour. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that wages communicated to the Ministry of Labour are a mere jot of the whole wages of the workers of this country. Only a few organisations make a practice of sending in their settled agreements. The bulk of the agreements are not sent in and registered at the Ministry. I am not making that point as a criticism of the Ministry. It is very difficult to get the full facts for the Ministry of Labour in this country, although it is one of the best equipped that there is in the world. On this matter of wages, the Ministry cannot say the last word. Even if the Ministry got all the agreements, those who are aware of the actual facts know that agreements are only approximate, and that what a man gets is different from what is put on paper. Piece rates for workshops and factories are not registered. I make that point only to indicate that the hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the general wage standard, is not speaking the last word.
There is a standard which is unanswerable—the appearance of the people in great areas as compared with what it was years ago. Hon. Members who are familiar with the great industrial areas have seen them during the weekdays and on Sundays. One thing must have struck them. On Sunday, the day when people turn out and go for walks, it is amazing,
on the whole, how decently the people keep themselves in the conditions. It has often been a mystery to me how they do it. But when one gets people normally about the place there is a difference. Men after the War, including ex-soldiers, very often used to dress well, which we were pleased to see. They wore collars and ties and decent types of suits. We were pleased to see the standard going up. These signs, while not everything, were to be welcomed as signs of increasing self-respect. The amazing thing has been to see great masses of people in towns and industrial areas go back to the old type of appearance of years ago. Sometimes they have lost all sense of pride in themselves. The hon. Gentleman can get all the figures, and argue as he likes to prove that they are not worse off, but those in the great industrial areas know that what they see with their own eyes is a demonstration of the fact that really things are too bad, and, behind that, there are great sacrifices in the homes. We say that this Estimate to pay for transitional payments is not big enough, because people are not receiving enough money.

Mr. PIKE: Why move to reduce it if it is not already big enough?

Mr. LAWSON: I wonder that the hon. Member, after a couple of years in this House, should put a question of that kind. It is the only way one can make a protest. I notice that the statement of the Minister of Labour, on the occasion that the last figures were sent out, seems to carry with it the meaning that things are getting considerably better. All the Press took that as a very optimistic statement indeed. I hope that it is correct. I have seen too much of the woe of it, from the national point of view, to wish anything else. I think that the point the Minister put on the last occasion is that the season's figures are an indication, to some extent, that there is a big improvement generally. We have also to measure the situation by the number of people who are going on to the poor law. We have to consider the actual number of people who are being struck off the register and this figure does not take account of heads of families. The amazing thing about this last statement of the Ministry is that it makes it clear that while things are improving, the improvement is mainly in
those trades which are affected by the seasons—building and all the rest of it. There is an improvement in engineering but, in the main, in the basic industries not only is the tale of woe continued but it is getting worse.
I do not think that there is anything to shout about or anything from which we can take any consolation in the slight improvement shown, if it is not favourably affecting those areas in which the basic industries are centred and which have suffered so much in the last few years. The tragedy of it is that they are getting worse and I think this is an occasion on which we should ask the Government what they propose to do to deal with this question. When are they going to face the fact of the increasing despondency in those areas. I understand that a deputation of representatives from the depressed areas is to meet the Minister of Health to-morrow. I suppose it was purely by accident that that meeting was not fixed for to-day when this Supplementary Estimate is being taken or for yesterday? At all events the Minister of Health meets them to-morrow. He met them a week or two ago and he met them a week or two before that.
The Government have admitted responsibility in this matter, and have definitely promised that they are going to make a special contribution towards these areas, but from week to week they have put off handling the problem. When are they going to give a report to the House of Commons upon this matter? I think that some representative of the Ministry of Health ought to meet that point. It has been our task for some years to deal with these matters up and down this country until the gloom of the situation oppresses us personally, but we are compelled by the facts to persist in raising the question here. We ought to have some statement from the Government to show that they are going to honour their obligations and fulfil their promises in reference to the depressed areas and the question of special grants to meet the necessities of those areas. I do not say that it was done deliberately and of malice aforethought but I wonder if it was quite by accident that the deputation to which I have just referred is meeting the Minister of Health to-
morrow, after this Supplementary Estimate has been disposed of, because this is perhaps the last big opportunity we shall have before the Recess of dealing with this subject.
Then, there is the question of work for the people in those areas. It is an undeniable fact that those who live in the coal areas have suffered directly because of the Government's policy. I make that definite charge. The Government realised that fact to some extent when they began making trade agreements with Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Argentine. We were told that we were going to sell another 80,000 tons a month to Germany. Those acquainted with the facts know that we are not selling a single ton more. Indeed I am afraid that something which I said during a previous Debate has proved only too true and that the Germans are not taking our coal because it is not considered to be of the true Nordic strain. Undoubtedly, political conditions there are operating against us. We are told we are going to get certain contracts—a Danish contract, a Norwegian contract and other contracts. The Government ought to tell us when these things are going to be dealt with and when we may expect to get at least some return as a result of the policy which they have adopted. But it is apparent that next month's figures, whatever they show generally in the country, as regards the great industrial areas which are representative of the basic industries will be found worse than ever.
I do not propose to deal further with this position, except to say that the Government have now about 43 per cent. of people who are claiming benefit—that is the 26 weeks—and I think about 44 per cent. who are receiving transitional payment. Roughly, nearly 15 per cent. are receiving neither benefit nor transitional payment. As regards those who are receiving transitional payment, and who are affected in the great industrial areas of the country, the Government have certainly gone a long way in lowering their standard of life while modern industry limits their opportunities for taking part in any kind of work. As regards the finance of the Insurance Fund, I trust that whatever the Government do in the future they will make the net for revenue to the Unemployment Insurance Fund as
wide as possible. There are complaints regularly about the agricultural workers. I hope the Government will include agricultural workers in the next Insurance Bill, but let this be understood, that those who spoke for agriculture many years ago did not want those workers to be included in insurance—there were at any rate two opinions upon the question. We are also being told now about the black coated worker and how much he is to be sympathised with because he does not get any unemployment benefit. I do not take the view that the Unemployment Insurance Fund should only be used when a man wants it. I take the view that everybody should make their contribution and the better a man's position the more reason that he should make his con-tribution.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is now getting very near a matter which involves legislation.

Mr. LAWSON: I appreciate the justice of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and your generosity in allowing me to put my point so far as I have done. But, having looked into the question of the finance of the Insurance Fund and into this Supplementary Estimate, I was trying to face the problem of getting the money in a more practicable way. We move this reduction in the Estimate because of the condition to which large masses of cur people have been reduced as a result of the fact that the Government have taken from them between £27,000,000 and £28,000,000 a year. If the Government have improved the position of the fund to any extent at all, they have only improved it by taking millions away from those who are least able to afford it. I said on Wednesday last, and I think it was a moderate estimate, that the Government had taken £55,000,000 from the unemployed in two years. The last Estimates for the Ministry of Labour with the Supplementary Estimates represented about £110,000,000. The Government are now asking for £76,000,000, with this Supplementary Estimate. Then there is the £27,500,000 to which I have referred— £12,500,000 taken from the benefit people by the 10 per cent. cut, and £15,000,000 a year taken from the people who are subject to the destitution test. With the £76,000,000 that works out at £103,000,000 or £104,000,000.
The position is that such improvements as the Government have made have consisted of taking money from the great mass of those who are unemployed. We ask the Committee to vote for this reduction as the only way in which we can register our protest. We think that the finance of this Government in this respect is having the effect of lowering the standard of life of great numbers of people who are eager and willing to work. Indeed the Government by their policy have brought a great many of our people to a lower standard of life than those people ever experienced before. If this Parliament and this Government do not wake up to the facts and realise the lamentable position into which many unemployed people are getting to-day, I am sorry to say that I believe that in the clays to come there will be overwhelming and unanswerable evidence of it from medical men—evidence the advance guard of which is already before our eyes.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Since this Debate began I have sat here and waited patiently to see if any representative of the Scottish Office would put in an appearance on the Government Bench, but such has not taken place. No Member of the Scottish Office is here or has been here; yet, on looking at the Unemployment Insurance Bill, I find that "Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins" is backing it. My point is that they should be sent for. It is a disgrace that something like unemployment, affecting Scotland as much as England or any other part of Britain, should be before the Committee and the Scottish Office should not be represented.

The CHAIRMAN: Even if I could admit that as a point of Order, the hon. Member must not make a speech about it. I have no doubt that what he has said will be taken notice of.

Mr. KIRKW00D: Further to that point of Order. Is there no way of doing this? We have had evidence to-day that your predecessor in the Chair exercised his authority, as far as the Members on these benches were concerned, by calling them to order because they were not conforming exactly to Parliamentary procedure in making their speeches. Surely, if those who hold the office that you occupy at present are in a position to
call Members of Parliament to order, you have the same authority, Sir Dennis, to see that the representatives of the Government who are backing such an important Measure as this are here, because this is more important that the World Economic Conference. It may not be so dramatic or get such a world-wide publicity, but it is just as important, and, therefore, they ought to be here. I want to ask from you, as Chairman in control of this Committee, Is there no means whereby you can see to it that they remain at the job for which they are paid?

The CHAIRMAN: There is no power Vested in the Chair to insist upon the attendance of any particular Minister on the Bench.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I think the case against the Government on this Amendment to reduce the Supplementary Estimate has been put by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) with great moderation. Probably his own experience in that Department has given him a fellow feeling, and everybody must feel that there can be no more unpopular task at present, or in any of the recent Governments, than to be Minister of Labour or his Parliamentary Secretary. Some of the facts which it is sought to lay at the door of the Government cannot altogether be fairly put to that address. For instance, the hon. Member pointed out—and it is undoubtedly an important factor—that we have to take into consideration the increase in the number of those who have been unemployed for a year of more. I should have thought that the increase in that number is only natural as a mere matter of the effluxion of time.
If you take 1929 as the last peak year, and 1930 as the year in which the really big slump began, it is only an accident that it was in 1930 that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and his friends were in office, but that is the fact, and it was then that the great increase of unemployment took place. For instance, in that year, in my own constituency, we started the year with about 6,000 unemployed, hut at the end of the year there were about 19,000, and now there are very few more—about 20,000. Therefore, I think the hon. Members opposite must
realise that the problem with which the Government are dealing is to a considerable extent an inherited problem. They have not invented it. That, of course, does not absolve the Government from the necessity of dealing with the facts that are before them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Those whom they represent were in control of this country when unemployment developed to such an alarming extent as we are faced with to-day.

Mr. GRIFFITH: No. I have just pointed out that that is where the hon. Member's facts are wrong. That is not the fact. It might be convenient for him if it were so, but the development of unemployment has been going on gradually now for a great many years, for which no party can claim to be fully free from responsibility, but when hon. Members on the benches opposite bring these accusations, I think that is the time when they should appropriately remember the very steep rise in unemployment which took place during their period of office.
The Government have just been given leave by the House to carry on, along lines with which we are all too familiar, for an additional space of time. They were bound to get that leave, not merely because they applied their huge majority to it, but because having some kind of bridge to carry over the interval was so necessary that I do not think even hon. Members opposite, if they had known that their votes would be effective in refusing leave to carry on with the legislation now existing, would have attempted to exercise that power. Everybody knew that the transition period must be gone through, but I hope that the Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary will realise that the House, in permitting the past practices with regard to the administration of their Department to continue for a further period, did so with very great uneasiness. I think everybody who has heard the Debates in which the Ministry of Labour has been concerned, on two days last week and to-day, must have been struck by an uneasiness which was not a party matter at all, not developed merely on the benches opposite, but displayed by everybody who has any familiarity with the distressed areas by representing them, as I do, or who has, like the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings
(Lord E. Percy), sufficient insight and imagination to see the other man's point of view. It was an uneasiness which meant that the permission to carry on was only given to the Government on the understanding that something definite should be done.
There is no department of administration by the Government which enters so intimately into the lives and homes of the people of this country as that of the Ministry of Labour. If there is friction there, it is not merely that the Government of the day will incur more hostility along that road than along any other; it means that the foundation of the State is really much more shaken in that way than in any other, because the security of society depends in the long run, not upon the police force, however it may be remodelled, or upon the Army and Navy, but upon the good will of the great mass of the people. However necessary a means test may be—and I have no hesitation in saying that I think it to be necessary—if there is felt to be harshness or unfairness in its administration or application, then much more friction in the State, much more danger to the State, will arise from that kind of thing than any other.
If anyone supposes, through lack of familiarity with the distressed areas, that the means test in any of those places is being administered without friction today, he is making a very grave mistake. Sometimes I think the idea gets about through the newspapers that there is friction only in those places where there is an actual dispute, such as we have seen between the Government and some local authority which is alleged by the Government not to be carrying out its duty. But that is only part of the picture. There is just as much friction, very often, in those areas where the local authority is trying to carry out its statutory duty, only there the local authority has to face the unpopularity itself, instead of passing it on to anybody else. We have to face the fact that at the present day a whole variety of questions, which I might be out of order if I developed, are arising, such as the question of the treatment of ex-service pensions, the question of the estimate that is made of compensation for injury to workmen, the way in which savings are taken into account in estimating the means test, and the computing of the
family income, which last is, perhaps, the greatest source of unpopularity.
On all these matters there are grievances arising, not merely in Rotherham and places like that, with which everyone is familiar because they have obtained great advertisement through a dispute; but all over the country countless instances are accumulating day by day, and that accumulation is in the end a matter of the very gravest peril. It is something that cannot be ignored, and it will go on, I am afraid, getting worse and worse unless means can be found to effect some radical change in the whole spirit of the administration. I am not laying anything to the charge of the Minister himself, because I think everybody who has heard him in this House realises his great personal kindness and sympathy towards the people with whom he has to deal, but he has limitations placed upon him which are mainly of a financial character, and those financial restrictions are partly the result of circumstances and partly the result of the general policy of the Government. Therefore, I am making no personal accusation against him, but, as one who has to live to a large extent with this unemployment problem very close to his mind, otherwise I should be false to my duty, I am offering the opinion that if this administration is allowed to go on without amendment, particularly in the respects which I have tried to indicate, there will be a real danger, not merely to this Government, but to the respect in which Parliamentary government is held by the people as a whole.
That is only one part of the problem. There is also the question, referred to by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, of the financial relations between the distressed areas and the Government, and there again the question is not a new one. I remember going as spokesman on deputations which we in the distressed areas have taken in the past, and are to take again, to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health. I ventured on a deputation to the last Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and I got rather more discouraging a reception from him than from the present Minister. The problem, as I say, is not a new one. I have no doubt there are reasons why the right hon. Member for Wakefield would not say more—

Mr. LAWSON: It is only fair that the hon. Member should acknowledge that the immediate effect of the 1930 Act was to take people off the Poor Law and pub them on the register, whereas the charge against the present legislation is that it has taken people off the register and put them on the Poor Law.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I am prepared to grant to the hon. Member that, for whatever reasons, the situation is undoubtedly very much graver; that is to say, the present Minister of Health and Minister of Labour have a much bigger and more urgent problem to deal with than had the last Government.

Mr. HUDSON: It is true that the 1930 Act took large numbers of persons off the Poor Law and made them entitled to benefit, but when the Labour party saw what happened as a result of their action, they passed the Anomalies Act.

Mr. LAWSON: Shame!

Mr. GRIFFITH: The point which I was putting was that, although the problem is graver now, in point of fact not merely the Members in this House from the distressed areas, but Members from the local authorities representing the distressed areas, were making just the same kind of demand on the Minister of Health in the last Government as on the Minister of Health in this Government, namely, that which has been our object in the distressed areas all the time, to get the State to recognise that it ought to take over the responsibility for the whole of the able-bodied poor. Now, although I have had many quarrels with this Government and have expressed them, I am bound to say that this is the first Government which has expressed a willingness to undertake that responsibility. It may be that they are not going to do it, but we shall be disappointed. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but at least some kind of hope has been held out.
I do want to remind right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench what a very great effect the pronouncements that were made with regard to taking over the responsibility for the able-bodied poor had in the country and in the distressed areas. It was regarded as a promise of enormous value. People began to think that here at last was hope. They were disappointed
and I was disappointed that it could not be implemented at once. The extent of the hope raised by that promise will be the measure of the disappointment and the disgust if the promise is not carried out. There was held out to us a double programme—a short-term and a long-term programme. The long-term programme is really the thing that matters to us. It is the thing which the depressed areas have wanted under various Governments, and we hope that we are going to see it without too much delay. I think that we are entitled to believe, after what we have heard from the Minister of Labour on the earlier subject of our discussion, that this will be embodied in some way in the reconstructing Bill which we have been promised is to be carried in this Session. I will not go further into that, because I shall be discussing future legislation, but that something will be done along these lines is our great hope.
The short-term programme has never meant so much to me. It is probable that it can be done by administration without any legislation at all, and therefore it is easier to debate, but I have always felt that there were grave difficulties in trying to ease the burden on the distressed areas by some kind of contribution scheme from one area to another. It is hard to decide merely on the figures of the amount of rates in one area or another which are depressed areas and which are not. I gave some figures on a previous occasion which led to the most laughable conclusions as to which of the areas would be called upon to relieve others. When it is a matter of making an appeal to the areas which are really prosperous and well off and to ask them to undertake to make some voluntary contribution, it is asking too much of human nature to expect that they would rush in with any great enthusiasm. I hope this step on the part of the Minister will be taken as a mere necessary formality that had to be gone through, and that the promises that have been made will genuinely be fulfilled. The Parliamentary Secretary's chief was a party with the Minister of Health to this undertaking, and I have no doubt that he would rather anything in the world happen than that he should disappoint or betray in any way the confidence which is placed in him by others. It has to be realised that a considerable measure of confidence was given by this
House on the strength of this assurance. There was before us a Vote of Censure moved by the Opposition, and the Members representing the distressed areas, except those belonging to the Official Opposition, voted with the Government against the Vote of Censure because they believed in the undertakings that were made. That, I think, imposes an obligation which I am certain that the Ministers in charge of the relevant Departments are very anxious to fulfil.
I urge that at the earliest possible date we may hear, if it is only of an interim nature, of something genuine being done to tide us over this period. The financial position of some of these local authorities is really desperate. They cannot possibly survive for very long a period of waiting. To that extent I shall be glad to see that the Government have in mind an interim programme until we can see their full plans before us. This whole business is one of the urgent things that the Government have to undertake. Probably in the end those great matters of international policy which we are considering in various conferences are even more important, but they do not come home so much and so immediately to the lives of the people. We have to remember that there are now thousands and thousands of people who are in a state where it is only to the Government that they can look for any assistance. That is the great tragedy of our time. This is not the first time we have had economic difficulties, but in times past there was generally some avenue of self-help that could be explored.
The tragic thing is that the avenues of self-help have been closed up in these days. Emigration, one of the most natural avenues of escape for the distressed individual in this country, whether within the Empire or to other parts of the world, is not worth talking about. Industrial transference within the nation, emigration, in a way, from one industry to another, was examined under a previous Government, but the actual amount that was realised was so small that I do not think anybody could set it seriously against the magnitude of the problem with which we are faced. That means that the great mass of the unemployed people, particularly in the depressed areas, where as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street rightly said, we have seen no signs of improvement
wherever else it may have been felt, can only look to the Government, as they have looked to Government after Government wondering whether there was anybody who could do anything for them. They have waited for a long time with a patience which is a marvel and a matter for admiration. I wonder how long it can go on. I do hope that from this Government there may in no short time come forward some measure of comfort and hope without which it is hard to believe that these great masses can continue to live.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Although I want to bring a difficulty which has arisen in regard to transitional payments to the attention of the Committee and the Under-Secretary, I always feel that one cannot fairly assess this problem without realising the disgraceful financial condition in which the Opposition allowed the position to drift when they formed His Majesty's Government—a condition of affairs which in spite of the protests of the Opposition it is only fair to say has scarcely been equalled outside the finances of China. The aspect of this question to which I particularly want to refer is one that has on occasions been referred to in the House but has been bandied about much more in the country. It is one of the sticks that the Opposition has found with which to beat the Government, and, seeing that it fulfils that purpose to their satisfaction, I do not think that they care too much about the accuracy of the statements attached to it. This aspect is to the extent to which the means test has been a cause of the disruption of the home, causing those who are receiving transitional payments to move into lodgings or, on the other hand, causing those who are receiving wages to remove elsewhere in order that those who would receive transitional payments, but who were debarred by the wage earners remaining in the home, may receive their determinations. I have endeavoured to find out something of the true position, because it has been voiced to a certain extent by the supporters of the Opposition in Birmingham. It is a matter about which it is difficult to get accurate figures, but, as a result of the efforts of the public assistance officer in Birmingham, we know a little where we stand. I will read a letter which he sent to me under date the 7th April, which
will place on record what he discovered. He says:
I have now had records kept of cases where a 'nil' or a low determination has been increased owing to the removal of the wage earners from the household. In the 24 relief districts of the city between the 7th February and 31st March, I find that there were 46 such cases. In five cases it was subsequently reported that the wage earners had returned home. It is doubtful whether the whole of the 46 can be attributed directly to the operation of the Transitional Payment Scheme, as in many cases the wage earners were not contributing a reasonable sum into the home for their maintenance. The number of Transitional Payment cases dealt with during the period 1st January, 1933, to 25th March, 1933, was 5,302 new applications, and 27,958 renewals or revisions of determinations.
If I may paraphrase that letter, it is to the effect that if we take the five cases from the 46 in the seven weeks which the public assistance officer has investigated, there were in Birmingham 41 cases where the determination of the public assistance committee may possibly be regarded as causing a removal from the home, or six per week when there were no less than 440 new applications per week, or about 1½ per cent. of the new applications. That is a negligible percentage if one takes into consideration renewals or revisions of determinations.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. SIMMONDS: I was referring to the fact that when these disruptions of the home were investigated, we found in a city like Birmingham that it occurred in less than 1½per cent. of the new determinations. Therefore, I think that everyone in equity would say that that is scarcely justification for some of the loud phrases that have been used by our opponents in this connection. It is not a negligible matter. It is one which I hope that the Minister of Labour will look carefully into, because obviously folk who have their homes manipulated and changed by any State action must feel that they are the victims of some very difficult circumstances.
There are three ways in which this trouble may occur. First we have the parents out of work during their period of transitional payments, with children bringing wages into the home. Take the example of a man with a wife and
two children, who would receive a normal determination of 29s. 9d. a week. It is well within the knowledge of the Committee that wages are subject to an allowance of 25 per cent. for personal expenses. If the income of these two children, who we will suppose are in employment is 39s. 8d. a week and we deduct 25 per cent., or 9s. 11d., then 29s. 9d. is left, and in those circumstances the public assistance committee would not be able to find in favour of payment of transitional benefit to this applicant. If, however, those children were to earn 10s. a week more, 49s. 8d., then clearly they would have that whole 10s. left to them. Comparing the two cases, we find that in place of 25 per cent. of the total income of those two children being retained for their personal use when their income is 39s. 8d., if the income rises to 49s. 8d. they are enabled to retain no less than 40 per cent. of their income.
These two examples show, I think, just where the boot pinches. It is in cases where the total income less the permitted deduction is round about the total permissible income for the home that the children leave home and go into lodgings, where they can retain their full income for themselves, the parents being then in a position to apply for transitional payment and must, by the determination of the public assistance committee, receive their full measure. In any possible modification which my hon. Friend may make it is perfectly obvious that he cannot open the flood gates of indiscriminate relief, a procedure in which the hon. Members of the Labour party are such pastmasters, but if he is able by any variation of the transitional payments scheme to keep these children at home, obviously that will have great social advantages, while at the same time not increasing the cost to the State but reducing it. Obviously, there would be a number of cases where the determination could be claimed where, in present circumstances, it would be reduced, but the Minister of Labour would find, I think, that if he were to raise the amount of money not taken into consideration from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. in cases where the total earned income is round about the total permissible income for the home, he would find there might even be an economy for the State.
That is one class of case. The second class is where the children themselves are in their transitional period and are forced out of the home by their parents who are in work. I believe that very seldom takes place, and I beg leave to think that if a parent will force a child out of the home in order that the child may receive transitional payment, it may be as well that that child should be separated from such a parent. Then there is the third type of case, where the person who is in his transition period is placed in a position of difficulty through no fault of his own. I will give the Committee one example of the trouble that exists. A man in Birmingham was liable, under a maintenance order of a court, to pay to his wife, from whom he was separated, 5s a week. He was living with relatives who were in work, and consequently, seeing that the income of the household was assessed as a complete unit, he himself received no transitional payment and had no income. As a result he had not the wherewithal to meet his weekly payment of 5s. to his wife. He was brought before the court and the magistrate, after inquiring into the position, told him that the court would hold the case over provided he left the home in which he was residing and went into lodgings. He did this, and thus received the full determination for a single man, and the court then ordered that he should continue to reside there and to pay the 5s. a week to his wife.
Here we have a case where, if the special committee of the main public assistance committee could have varied the pay to a man who is forced out of the home in which he normally resides by some outside set of circumstances over which he has no control, instead of having to pay the sum of 16s. 3d. per week the State need pay only the 5s. which the court calls upon the man to find.
I have outlined, I hope to the satisfaction of the Committee, three types of case in which there is a tendency for the transitional payment regulations to drive people out of the home against their wish. As I have endeavoured to show, the number of such cases is relatively small, but in a matter like this a minority must not be sacrificed unless the difficulties of administration render it absolutely impossible to remedy the position.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member ought not to draw a deduction from Birmingham and apply it to the whole country. It may be l½ per cent. in Birmingham, but we know that it is a, substantially higher percentage in South Wales and the distressed areas.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I have not endeavoured to generalise in any way, I would not dream of doing so; but what I do say is that these are the first figures which I have seen dealing specifically with this position. As my hon. Friend will find if he will discuss this matter in his own area, it entails considerable work to discover the exact figures. Here we have figures, and in the absence of any other figures—and I have not heard any given by his friends on the Opposition Benches—I am assuming that these may possibly represent something like an average for the country. I say to the Minister of Labour that this is a matter needing very careful investigation, and if he will give, in particular, the last type of case to which I have referred his sympathetic consideration, I know that all hon. Members will be indebted to him.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I rise to support the Amendment, and I consider that we are justified in recording our opposition to this Supplementary Estimate. We ought not to have been called upon to deal with a Supplementary Estimate, because the Government have had an abundance of time in which to frame a comprehensive Measure. They received the report of the commission last October, but after nine months we are no further towards the promised legislation, and it is my opinion that if the Minister of Labour wants to draft his new legislation on the lines which he suggested when speaking last Wednesday, that is, to draft it on a sound financial basis, then another nine months, and even nine years, will pass before we see the promised Bill. The Minister cannot expect to be able to put the Unemployment Insurance Fund on a sound financial basis, and if that is the reason why he has not been able to draft his legislation up to the present time I am of opinion that he will find that objection still confronting him when the Autumn Session comes. The Lord President of the Council, speaking on 25th February, said:
The one nightmare of my life for years has been unemployment. How I rejoice to feel that we have now reached the hour in which we can and ought to start work on this question with vigour and spirit.
This is the hour, and it is signalised by the absence of the Lord President. He and other Members of the Cabinet are too busy attending dinners and social gatherings to put in an appearance on the Treasury Bench. Although the hour may have arrived they are more interestingly engaged than in attending at the House to deal with these questions. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be frightened of the proposed legislation on unemployment and I think he has good reason to be, because the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not know where he is—

Mr. LANSBURY: He is having his dinner. I should not worry him.

Mr. McGOVERN: There are seven Tories in the House.

Mr. BATEY: I am talking upon these matters so that the Parliamentary Secretary may get back before I deal with the principal points on which I wish to speak. The Leader of the Opposition was justified in being frightened of the proposed legislation upon unemployment, because of some remarks that were made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour last Friday. Dealing with this question, the Parliamentary Secretary let us into a little bit of the mind of the Government as to the lines on which they proposed to draft their Bill. He used these words:
There must be some relation between the number of contributions paid and the length of time during which a man can draw benefit.
If these are the lines upon which the Government propose to move, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, when he returns to the Front Bench, whether we are to understand from that that only those who are entitled by the length of time during which they have paid contributions are to draw benefit in the future, and that those who are receiving transitional payment now but have no contributions to their credit are to be cut off completely. That is the construction that we put upon the words that the Parliamentary Secretary used. He also said this:
You must make some distinction between the man who draws benefit to which he is
entitled as of right by virtue of prior con tributions, and the man who is not so entitled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th June, 1933; col. 444, Vol. 279.]
If that is in the mind of the Government in drafting the new legislation, I have no hesitation in saying that, bad as we are—we sometimes imagine that we could not be worse off, although things are desperately bad, especially in the distressed areas—God help us when the new legislation comes along. It will simply mean that only those will be able to draw from the Unemployment Fund who have been able to pay contributions, and that all those who, at the present time, are in receipt of transitional payment, are to be completely cut off and put into another category. We know what that means.
In regard to the Measure to deal with unemployment which the Government say they intend to bring in, I believe that we will not see it either this year or next year. We shall need something more than a Supplementary Estimate before we get some such Measure from the Government. The Minister of Labour made a statement last Wednesday that I should like him to clear up, if he were in the House. It is a pity that he is not here. He said:
It has already been announced by the Minister of Health, in his speech in the House on the 12th April, that the Government propose to introduce this Session a Bill dealing on a national basis with the problem of assistance in respect of unemployment, and that it has been decided that the Government shall accept responsibility for assisting all the able-bodied unemployed who need assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1933; col. 134, Vol. 279.]
That seems as though the Minister of Labour, in making that statement, had in his mind another Bill to be brought before the House—a different Bill from what he terms his "comprehensive" Bill dealing with unemployment. It is just as well that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is here, because he may be able to help us on this point. I got the impression that what the Minister of Health meant to do was to wait until a comprehensive Bill was brought in to deal with unemployment, and to deal then with this question of the Government taking responsibility for the unemployed. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to tell us whether it is in the mind of the Government to bring another Bill before the House to carry out the pledges made by
the Minister of Health on 12th April. Are we to look forward to two new Bills before the end of the Session, one a comprehensive Bill dealing with unemployment, and the other a Bill by the Ministry of Health dealing with the distressed are as and the acceptance of responsibility for the unemployed?
Last Friday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour referred to a speech of mine, made in Durham, in which I was dealing with the Commissioners' report. He said that the Commissioners reported 44 cases, and that they could have made that number 4,400. Instead of the cost of the Commissioners being £60,000, it was expected to be round about £30,000, and the savings of the Commissioners were expected to be about seven or eight times as much. Before I deal with those arguments. I want to say that he was not so guarded as his chief, the Minister of Labour, "was in speaking here last Wednesday. Dealing with the Commissioners' report, the Minister of Labour was so guarded as merely to say:
In my view, that report is a justification of my action in appointing the Commissioners and is a justification of their administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1933; col. 178, Vol. 279.]
He seemed to be elated about it and to glory in the fact that he had appointed the Commissioners. It seemed as though he wanted to pat himself on the back, and as though he felt three inches taller because he had appointed those Commissioners and was justified in appointing them. If the appointment of Commissioners to starve a noble people can be justified, the Minister, or whoever was responsible, is entitled to whatever glory he can get. It is not a proper matter about which he should congratulate himself, but something rather on the other side.
What is the report that the commissioners issued? It is not really a report of the work of the commissioners, and it is not a fair report of their work. I do not hesitate to say that it is one of the vilest reports that have ever been issued by a Government Department. It is a waste of Government money to publish it. It gives no account of the cases with which the commissioners have dealt. The report is supposed to cover the three months from 1st December to 28th February. The least that the commissioners might have done was to tell us
the number of cases that they had dealt with in the three months, the number of cases in which benefit had been reduced, and the number in which it had been abolished, during that time. They do not do that, and there is not a single word about it in their report. They do not say a word, either, about the amount of money which they consider has been saved, but of which we consider the people have been robbed; and, very wisely, they do not say a word about the amount of money that they themselves have cost. In my opinion the report was issued simply to blacken the characters of the Labour men on the public assistance committees in Durham, and, knowing those men, and seeing the first name on this report, one has no hesitation in saying that this man at least ought never to have issued such a report trying to blacken the character of the Labour men on the public assistance committees in Durham.
Why was this report kept back? It deals with the work of the commissioners up to the 28th February; it was signed by the commissioners in April; but it was not issued until the 2nd June, the day on which the House was adjourning for the Whitsuntide Recess, and when it had been announced in the House that the business on the second day on which we met would be a Debate on the means test. I have no hesitation in saying that this report was deliberately kept back for the purpose of prejudicing public opinion in favour of continuing the means test. Nobody knows better than the Government how obnoxious the means test has been throughout the country, how hated it is throughout the country. They know that they could not carry a single industrial seat where this means test is operating; they know that it would destroy every supporter that they have in every industrial area. At any rate, I am certain that in Durham we should sweep every industrial seat where anyone dared to stand for the means test.

Mr. McKEAG: Would the hon. Member be willing to pay public money to applicants without any inquiry of any kind as to their means?

Mr. BATEY: I was going to deal with that point later, but I will answer it now. I believe sincerely and honestly that a
man is entitled to either work or maintenance—that, if a man cannot get work, he is entitled to maintenance without any inquiry.

Mr. McKEAG: Irrespective of what his private means may be?

Mr. BATEY: I consider that need ought not to be a qualification for insurance or transitional benefit. I believe that a man is entitled to benefit if he is unable to get work, and, certainly in the north of England, this Government is preventing thousands of men from getting work in the colliery industry.

Mr. CAPORN: Would the hon. Member apply a test as to whether a man cannot get work, and what would that test be?

Mr. BATEY: I believe that, if work is offered to a man, he is entitled to accept it. I would not attempt to justify a man who refused to accept work when work was offered to him, but I believe that, if work is not offered to him, he is entitled to full maintenance.

Mr. PIKE: How is it to be known, without a test, whether he has been offered work or not? For the sake of clarity, let us assume that one of the hon. Member's constituents came into my constituency of Attercliffe. How would anyone administering unemployment insurance in Attercliffe know whether the constituent of the hon. Member had been offered work in his division, unless a test was applied?

Mr. BATEY: If the hon. Member will read the Act of 1930 and the discussions that took place upon it, he will find that we made provision for that.

Mr. MAGNAY: What other reason is there for going to work except need?

Mr. BATEY: Nobody likes work. There are many people in this country at the present time who can manage to live without work, and live well. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here; I am sorry I started before he came, because I know he was anxious to be here, and wants to reply. I will repeat, while he is here, one thing that I was saying. I was dealing with this report and its being kept back, and I said that in my opinion it had been kept back deliberately, because it dealt with
the work of the commissioners up to the 28th February, it was signed in April, and it was not issued until the 2nd June. I said that it was deliberately kept back for the purpose of prejudicing public opinion in favour of continuing the means test. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, although it mentioned 44 cases, he could give 4,400 cases. But the commissioners' report does not give the 4,400 cases, and the Parliamentary Secretary may take it from me that, if they could have given them, they would have done so. They would give 10,000 cases if they could. I do not blame them for having given all the cases that they could, or for giving all the worst cases that they could. The Parliamentary Secretary must remember that, when we were debating the matter before, he threw at us three cases which he considered were bad cases. We said, "We do not object, but give us the names and addresses of the people privately so that we can have a chance of investigating the cases." He would not. Even with these 44 cases we are still in the same position.
The report is unfair because it not only gives the 44 cases where the public assistance committee paid too much, but it says that there are a few cases where they paid too little. I am not sure that those few cases where they paid too little were not just as bad as the 44 cases where they paid too much. It created a false impression in some quarters that the Labour members of the public assistance committee had deliberately punished some people because they were not Labour supporters. What need was there for Labour members of the committee to punish anyone who did not vote for them at the last Election? They could leave that to the National Government which is punishing those who voted for them. I met a man recently in my division who said: "I voted for the National Government at the last election, but never again." He told me the reason. He works on the surface at a coal pit for four days a week, and he has a son 26 years of age. Because he is working four days a week, the commissioners are making him keep his son without any supplementary benefit. He said to me: "I have been a Tory all my life, but never again." I fancy to-day that I can still hear him saying, "Never again." You talk about Labour punishing men, because they do
not agree with Labour, but what has the National Government done? The commissioners have given some cases of a man who has a house, or a man who has a few pounds. We generally regard a man with a house or a bit of money as a Tory. It is not often that he votes Labour. The National Government, through the commissioners, is saying to those people: "Although you did send the National Government in at the last election, you have a house. Before you get any supplementary benefit, eat the house. Until you eat it, and swallow the last brick, we will give you no support." I do not believe there were 4,400 cases. The Parliamentary Secretary will excuse me saying I do not believe what he says.

Mr. McKEAG: Were there 440?

Mr. BATEY: I believe the commissioners gave every case they could. They say in their report that they examined all the supplementary cases up to 28th January. There were then 74,514 cases in Durham.

Mr. DICKIE: Would you have given benefit in those 44 cases?

Mr. BATEY: Certainly Have no doubt about that. I am justifying the public assistance committee. Forty-four cases out of 74,514 is one out of 1,693. That is nothing to complain about. If the Department would appoint an independent committee to investigate those cases, they would now find an immensely larger number of cases that are being underfed. If the Parliamentary Secretary can accept the idea of appointing an independent committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and I will form ourselves into a committee and we will go through the cases that the commissioners have gone through. We will examine them and give a report. We will not charge £1,200 a year. We will do it free.

Mr. PIKE: Blackleg labour!

Mr. BATEY: Yes, we will blackleg in that case. We will investigate every case, and we will stagger the country, because the commissioners are simply starving the county. They are robbing thousands of people of money that belongs to them. If you reckon the amount of money that these 44 cases were being paid, it comes to £37 18s. 6d. a week and, in order to save that, they appoint com-
missioners costing over £1,000 a week. The Parliamentary Secretary disputed that figure in a recent speech. He said the commissioners were costing round about £30,000 a year. He must have known that that figure was not correct, because in answer to a question in the House it was stated that for the first quarter the expenses of the commissioners were £14,000 and non-recurrent expenditure £2,100. Leaving the £2,100 out, and taking the £14,000 for three months and multiplying it by four gives you £56,000 a year. There is a wide difference between £56,000 a year, not reckoning non-recurrent expenditure, and the £30,000 mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading exactly what I said in the Debate instead of quoting from memory, he will find that there is no discrepancy at all between the two figures.

Mr. BATEY: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot run away like that. I did not come prepared to deal with these questions without having his exact words before me. This is what he said:
The hon. Member went on to ask what was the cost of the administration and to suggest that the commissioners were costing more than the saving they were making. I cannot tell the exact cost to a penny, but I can tell him that the additional cost for a year would probably be in the neighbourhood of £30,000 and that the saving which we anticipate from their appointment will amount to seven or eight times as much. On that ground alone, their appointment was fully justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 446, Vol. 279.]

Mr. HUDSON: But what the hon. Member omitted from his original statement was my use of the word "additional." The additional cost is £30,000 a year; the total cost is £56,000 a year. I said that the additional cost of putting in the commissioners over the expenditure which would in any case have been incurred by the county council, which is the only thing that matters, was £30,000 a year. That is true. The total cost of the administration under the commissioners is equivalent to the additional cost, plus the original cost under the county council.

Mr. LAWSON: Does that mean that it is costing £26,000 to the county council?

Mr. HUDSON: Something like that.

Mr. BATEY: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot get away riding the high horse in that way. The point in the Debate was this. Here was the expenditure of the commissioners and here was a saving. One was set against the other, when, as a matter of fact, the administration was costing over £1,000 a week or over £50,000 a year. I will leave that matter. But when the Parliamentary Secretary had the £30,000 in his mind, he said that they were saving seven or eight times that amount. If the commissioners were what he called saving—we call it robbery—seven or eight times £30,000 it would amount to something like £210,000 a year. Here is a distressed area, with people in a desperate condition, not able to live, and yet there is boasting of commissioners who save over £200,000 out of these people. That is a condition of things for which no decent man should stand.
I read a report this morning of the reception held at Londonderry House last night. I saw that the Minister of Labour was there. I was not surprised that the Prime Minister was there, because the Prime Minister always prefers Londonderry House to this House. The Minister of Labour would get an altogether wrong impression at Londonderry House last night. Londonderry House is not typical of the homes of the miners in the county of Durham. Londonderry House is connected with the coal industry. Londonderry House is there because of the wealth which has been produced in the coal mines of this country. I should be sorry if anybody who went to the reception at Londonderry House last night got the impression that it was typical of the county of Durham and of the homes of the miners in the county of Durham. The disgrace of it is that there should be a reception and feasting and drinking such as there was at Londonderry House last night while thousands of miners and their wives and bairns in the county of Durham are starving. If the Londonderrys had the money to throw away, as it was thrown away last night, it would have been better spent on the miners and their wives and bairns in the county of Durham than in feeding people who did not need to be fed. The "News Letter," which is the Prime Minister's paper, issued, I believe, fortnightly for the purpose of boosting the Prime Minister, on 10th June in a big black headline, used the
Words "The Durham Scandal," relating to an article dealing with the commissioners. The article said that the commissioners made some remarkable disclosures which justified the supersession of the public assistance committee.

Mr. HUDSON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BATEY: Oh, you agree with that. I could understand some of the National Labour men standing for that, but I cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary standing for it. There is nothing in this report which justifies the supersession of the Durham Public Assistance Committee. The article talks about the "shameful abuse of public authority," and says:
swelling the unearned income of families considerably richer than their own.
That is a tit-bit. It is a little amusing to find this paper talking about the public assistance committee in Durham, after having granted the £37 18s. 6d. per week extra, as "swelling the unearned income of families considerably richer than their own." The pity is that the working class is producing wealth to swell the unearned income of families richer than their own. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister agrees with that article in the "News Letter." He sits for a Durham constituency. He owes his position in this House, in the big chair at the World Economic Conference, and at the public functions to foreign men which he attends every day, to the fact that he was elected to this House by Durham men and women. I want to know whether he agrees with this nasty article which talks about "The Durham Scandal." One of my Friends reminds me that perhaps the biggest Durham scandal that ever took place was the return of the Prime Minister.
I have condemned very strongly the Commission in Durham, but the Parliamentary Secretary has given the impression to me, after what I have read from the "News Letter," that he agrees with the appointment of the commissioners to rob the poor in the county of Durham. I could cite scores of cases where the poor people are being robbed, and if the challenge made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, to go through the work of the commissioners, were taken up I believe that we could
give such a report as would justify my statement. Instead of appointing commissioners to rob the poor, and being so complacent, so happy and so cheerful about it, the Government would have done better to have appointed commissioners to find work for the people. The Government have acted on the wrong lines. They seem to think that it is noble to rob the poor man of 6d. There is nothing noble about that. If they would spend money in appointing commissioners to find work and if the commissioners were told that instead of using their time as they are using it now they should become employment commissioners, their work would be to much better purpose. It is only along those lines that the Government will solve the unemployment problem. Sooner or later they will have to appoint commissioners to find work for men.
One could suggest many ways in which employment commissioners could put (men into work. If I were an employment commissioner I would insist that no man should work more than 40 hours a week until everybody else was in employment. I would not allow some men to work from 70 to 80 hours a week, as they do now, while other men are not able to work for one hour. I would definitely limit the time that men could work, in order that other men could get a job. I would also examine the question of machinery. I would not allow employers to supplant men by machinery, unless they contributed to the support of the displaced men while they were out of employment. I would prevent, as far as I could, machines from being installed to throw men-on the unemployment market. Seeing that there are so many young men who cannot get work I would insist upon those young men having work before young women. I would go to the Post Office and say that unless a young woman could prove that she was maintaining a widowed mother, or an invalid father, or that her wages were absolutely necessary, I would clear women out of employment altogether until all men were employed. The Government must take drastic action before men in this country can find work. Instead of thinking about new Bills and of putting unemployment insurance on a sound financial basis, and instead of appointing commissioners to rob the people, they ought to pay attention to finding work for men.
That would be better than paying either standard benefit or supplementary benefit.
The Minister said the other day that one ought not to pay benefit unless the need was justified. My reply is that the Government ought either to find work or pay. There is abundance of money in this country, and I see no reason for not paying. Only to-day we had an instance where by a mere book-keeping item a sum of £200,000,000 was created. There is abundance of wealth in this country for everything except for the poor. If the wealthy classes of this country wanted money they would create the money, but if it is a case of the poor wanting money we are told the poor must suffer, and those who say that are prepared to make the poor suffer. We stand for the unemployed all the time. We stand for the poorest of the poor. We believe that when an unemployed man and his wife get 23s. 2d. a week they are not getting too much. The Government ought to be prepared to pay to those who are transitional cases just as if they were standard cases. Until a man can find work, they ought to pay that man.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: During the time that I have been a Member of this House I have not invariably supported the present Government, and I have also taken opportunity to criticise the administration of the means test, but in spite of those two facts I must confess that I listened with some impatience to the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). He put forward a doctrine with which I doubt if even the Front Opposition Bench would agree. He said that he stands for work or maintenance without any inquiry, irrespective of private means. That goes even further than the Leader of the Opposition. I always feel a sense of unreality when I hear from above the Gangway opposite these attacks on the means test, because I am convinced that if by any miracle the party opposite were to be returned to office or power at the next election we should have the means test just the same. One would find it very difficult to discover any civilised country or any modern State in which unemployment relief, outside insurance, is paid out without some kind of test of means. That applies not only to the ordinary capitalist or private enterprise States, but it even applies to
Soviet Russia. I have here the Soviet "Law of Marriage," and I should like to read a short extract from that law:
The duty to support children rests upon both parents. The extent of their contributions towards their support depends upon their respective means. Children must support their needy, incapacitated parents. When parents are unwilling to support their children or children their parents, in the cases provided under Sections 42 and 49 of the present code such persons entitled to support can sue for the same in court.
And it goes on to say:
An incapacitated grandfather or grandmother is entitled to alimony from his or her grandchildren if the latter possess sufficient means, provided such alimony cannot be obtained from the conjugal partner or the children. Similarly, grandchildren who are under age or incapacitated are entitled to alimony from their grandfather or grandmother if possessed of sufficient means, provided they are unable to obtain such alimony from their parents.
That clearly sets out the principle of the family means need which obtains in the one State in which Socialist principles have been applied. I go further and I say that hon. Members below the Gangway if they were in office and were able to apply the principles of Lenin, as they have been applied in Soviet Russia, would have a family means test just the same. There is no country which accepts the principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Spennymoor. I have criticised on several occasions the administration of the means test, and there are many people in this House and in the country who are not necessarily opposed to a means test—who probably are in favour of the principle of a means test—who are very definitely opposed to this means test. We have to distinguish between the principle and its application as we have seen it during the last year and a-half.
There are one or two points to which I want to draw attention with regard to the means test. The first is a comparatively small one; it has not yet been raised in this House. It is the question of public holidays. If you have a family of which most members are unemployed but of which one member happens to be at work, it follows that the family is living largely on the earnings of the one member who is employed. There comes along a bank holiday, or a public holiday, in respect of which he does not earn anything, and at the end of the
week he finds that he is 2s. or 3s. or 4s. short of his full wages because of that day's holiday. It may not mean much when the person has only himself or herself to keep, but when you have the whole family living to a large extent upon the earnings of one member the loss of those few shillings may be a very serious matter. I suggest that this is a point which is worth the attention of the Minister of Labour.
The second point is much more important. We have heard a great deal about disability pensions and savings, and about workmen's compensation, but none of these things compare as a grievance with the question of the family allowance, the family contribution. That is the grievance which anyone who represents an industrial area will realise is the greatest cause of discontent. The family contribution, and the way in which it is exacted, contributes more than anything else to the discontent and unrest that has been aroused by the means test in industrial areas. What happens? In most districts the personal allowance that is made to a man out of his earnings is 15s. per week, the rest has to go into the family pool. I know that in some cases the allowance is even smaller, but 15s. is, I think, the average. You may get the most remarkable results. In a recent Debate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) pointed out that you may have circumstances where a man is better off when he is out of work, because when he is in work and is allowed only 15s., with no allowance for his travelling expenses to and from work, it may mean that from his own point of view he is better off out of work. That is an extreme case, but it happens under the present system of family contribution.
But it raises a much more serious point; it raises a question of principle. One of the mainsprings of our present social system, which hon. Members call the capitalist system or private enterprise, is the differentiation of rewards. We say to people that if they can render better services or more services they shall draw a higher reward. You are destroying that largely by this system of the family contribution, because in effect you are saying to the one wage earner in a household that if he is able to increase his earnings from 30s. to 50s. that in the view of the public assistance committee he
himself will derive no direct benefit from that increase because big personal allowance is to be set at 15s., or whatever figure may be recognised by the public assistance committee, and all the rest of his increased earnings must go into the family pool. I suggest that in framing their comprehensive Measure the Government should consider the question of having a scale, or rather taking the matter the other way round, and instead of saying to a man, "You shall have a small personal allowance out of your wages, we expect you to make a certain contribution out of your wages according to the size of your wages. If you are earning 30s. we expect you to contribute 10s. to the family pool, and if you are earning 40s. per week we expect you to contribute 15s."That would be a reasonable contribution to ask, and if we had a system like that we should remove by far the greater part of the bitterness which at present exists in depressed areas.
I do not agree with most that is said by hon. Members opposite, but there is no doubt that in the depressed areas, and I represent one, this issue looms a great deal larger than any other political issue. One frequently has the experience in addressing political meetings in our constituencies, before an audience a large number of whom are unemployed and subject to the means test, that when you endeavour to discuss the Ottawa Conference or the World Economic Conference you are interrupted with shouts, "What do we care about that. Tell us about the means test." The hon. Member who opened the Debate in a very eloquent speech referred to the condition of the people and made a calculation according to which, by the cuts in unemployment pay coupled with the savings of the means test, the unemployed in the past two years are £55,000,000 poorer than they would have been if these measures had never been taken. I was one of those who thought that the cut was necessary in 1931. I said that I thought it should be a temporary measure. I thought that a means test of some kind was necessary. But the fact remains that you cannot take that vast sum of money from this particular class without having a very big effect on their health and their standard of life.
It is always represented from the Front Ministerial Bench, when these questions
are discussed, that really the unemployed class is no worse off, and we are given all sorts of figures and all kinds of percentages which seek to show that really the unemployed man is better off by 1s. 4d. than he was three years ago, or something of that kind. It is a difficult matter to obtain exact information or an exact comparison between the condition of the unemployed in a certain area at the present time and their condition a few years ago, but I think it is possible to make some sort of comparison and to apply some sort of test if we take the figures for the provision of meals and clothing to necessitous school children. I have here the report of the Committee of the Council on Education in Scotland, which has just been issued. Under Section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908 local authorities are obliged in certain circumstances to provide meals and clothing for school children who are in need of them. On page 32 of this report there is given a comparison between last year, that is the period up to 15th May of the present year, and former years.
It is pointed out that last year clothing-was provided to 98,995 children. In 1930–31 the number was only 68,943; and in 1929–30 it was 55,923. So the number has been very nearly doubled in two years. Then if we take the expenditure on food and clothing together, that is the net expenditure, leaving out what is recovered from the parents, we find that the expenditure in the last financial year was £100,091, compared with £72,270 last year and £57,885 the year before that. I know that that is a general survey of Scotland. But I know also the experience of Dundee. In Dundee five years ago the amount provided for meals was £2,200. In the last financial year it had risen to £5,800, and there had to be a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MAXTON: And with foodstuffs cheaper.

Mr. FOOT: Yes, with foodstuffs cheaper. I suggest to the Government that these are very significant figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion that there is a very considerable deterioration in the standard of life of the unemployed in a great many of the industrial areas, and especially in the distressed areas. In a Debate such as this, we cannot go far in
suggesting remedies. I have already made certain suggestions in the direction of a more generous application of the means test. If we could get that more generous application, if we could get a raising of the family contribution, that is of the amount allowed to the man in work, it would be a considerable step forward. Secondly, those of us who sit on these Liberal benches are unanimous in thinking that when financial conditions become less stringent, when it is possible to give any relief from the cuts that were imposed in 1931, the first claim on that relief should be the claim of the unemployed, who two years ago were called upon to bear the heaviest sacrifice of all.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) said that if the Labour party were again to form a Government they would introduce a means test. That has been denied time and again from these benches. The Parliamentary Labour party is pledged that, whenever it comes into power, it will remove the means test. The test that will be initiated is the offer of a job or maintenance. That is what the Labour party stand for. I want to warn those who are advocating too much the idea of a guarantee or the offer of a job, because we might be let in for something there. They might offer a man any kind of job. As far as we Socialists are concerned, if we have anything to do with the framing of that idea, that will be safeguarded. It will not be a Case of accepting any old job that may be offered to a man. We hold that if the Government or the employers of the country cannot provide a man with a job, it is the duty of the community to maintain that man and his dependants in comfort. Let me come to what we have been discussing, which is a reduction in the salary of the present Minister of Labour.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To avoid misapprehension I would remind the hon. Member that that is not the case. What we are discussing is a reduction of the Supplementary Estimate, and the Minister's salary does not come within the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thank you for that word. It Was just a slip that I made. The Amendment is for a reduction of the Estimate by £100. It gives us an oppor-
tunity of attacking the Government, not the Minister. I am not going to throw any bouquets at the Minister. We could remove this Minister and put in another Minister, but that would not alter the treatment that is meted out to the unemployed of this country. It is a far bigger affair than individuals. The present Prime Minister, when he got power, started to face this subject by creating a Minister of Unemployment, and, according to his own statement, he could not have met an abler man for the job on this side of heaven than the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for the Dominions. That right hon. Gentleman told us many tales as to what he was going to do. He went to Canada and was going to create a boom in the export trade between this country and Canada. He even suggested that we were going to get work on the Clyde building seven ships to take the coal from this country to Canada. Those ships eventually turned out to be mystery ships. I pointed out to him at the time that, during the War, we built "mystery ships" on the Clyde and would be able to build his mystery ships, but they never materialised. With all his outstanding ability, the right hon. Gentleman failed miserably and lost his job. Not only that, but the Government of the day, under the present Prime Minister, did away with the new portfolio and the new Department which they had themselves-created. They did so because they had failed.
This unemployment problem will defeat every Government, irrespective of what it is called, until it is tackled along Socialist lines. We then kept plying the Prime Minister with questions regarding unemployment, with the result that he decided to appoint an economic committee, of which Lord Weir, an outstanding Scottish Tory and colliery and engineering employer of labour, was the chairman. Time after time I asked the Prime Minister when we were going to have a report from that economic committee. We have not had a report from it yet. That committee failed to do anything to solve the unemployment problem.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that we are not now discussing the Estimate of the Ministry of Labour but a Supple-
mentary Estimate dealing chiefly with transitional payments. As the Estimate is a very large sum indeed for that purpose, it is only reasonable that the Committee should treat that service as a new service, but we cannot go into the whole Ministry of Labour Estimate on this Supplementary Estimate, because it does not arise on this occasion, although I have no doubt it will in the near future.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I assure you that the Chairman arranged at the beginning of this Debate that we should have a wide field. Others in the Debate have taken the same wide line as I am taking, though they did not cover exactly the same ground, and I hope you will allow me to proceed. The next step the Government took was to try to solve this problem of unemployment by rationalising the shipyards. That was the policy of the Government under the present Prime Minister. They shut down the shipyards, and in my own constituency they chose not redundant yards but all the most up-to-date shipyards in the world. They not only closed them, but they sold every particle of machinery they could, and what they could not sell they scrapped, so that the people there are left without any hope that they will get a job when trade takes an upward turn. In those districts they know that there is no more work for them. Tens of thousands of as good men as any in the House or any that were at Lord Londonderry's house last night will never work again. It is not the fact that they will not work against that annoys me, because in many instances they have worked long enough, but it is the fact that they do not get the standard of life necessary to maintain decency and comfort unless they are working. They are denied the right to work through no fault of their own.
In my opinion, we are now facing the most serious problem that Britain has to face, and I am satisfied that the calling of this Economic Conference and other conferences which have been called is with a view to taking the minds of the people from their own conditions. That has always been the scientific method. Catherine of Russia said, "When you get into trouble at home have a war abroad." Our Prime Minister has a mind scientific and subtle enough to see that here is a way of taking the eyes of the people
off the conditions that prevail at home by calling this Economic Conference. When Labour was in power in this country and Members of the present Government were on the Front Bench, prominent Tories worried them as long ago as 1924 and kept asking them what they were going to do about unemployment. It was then that the Minister of Labour at that time, Mr. Shaw, said that one could not produce rabbits out of a hat. At that time the Tories were blaming all the unemployment on the Labour Government because they were not capable of solving it. The Labour Government could not solve it under the conditions. Can this Government solve it? What did the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) tell the country? He said he could conquer unemployment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really must ask the hon. Member to keep to the transitional payments. The Committee has had a very wide discussion, but this is only a Supplementary Estimate and we cannot possibly go into the whole field of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not want to be out of order any more than I can help. I do not want to be up against you, Captain Bourne, and I do not pursue the matter. I would remind hon. Members that we have to face our constituents. We have to face the country. I have been all over Scotland within the last month or two addressing huge meetings and I can bear out the statement of the senior Member for Dundee who said that no matter what else he talked about, audiences in Dundee were always tripping him up about unemployment and the means test. That is the question which the House of Commons ought to face. I know it does not want to face that question. Hon. Members want to live a life of ease. They do not want to hear the story of unemployment. They do not want us to tell them of the conditions created by unemployment insurance as it is operated to-day, by the means test and by the Anomalies Act. The House of Commons, I know, will do all it can to put me down if it thinks it can put me down and will try to keep me from telling here what the country feels on this question and what I am thinking now and what I have thought for some time on the situation of the unemployed.
In Scotland, it is not merely the horny-handed sons of toil who are "up against it." We have almost 3,000 graduates of various universities for whom there is no employment. It used to be held out to us that if boys and girls had a good education they were sure to get on and sure to get a place. That theory does not hold good now. We have them roaming the streets to-day. There are those today who have never worked. Do not mistake me. I know what it is to work. I worked until the employers would not allow me to work any longer. Until I was 40 I was in the workshops and could take my place with the best in the workshop and I did not leave the workshop to get a "cushy" job. I was driven out because of the fight I put up on behalf of my class. I know what work means and work is something on which the Members of this Committee require explanation. What we do here is not work, from the workers point of view. Members come and go here as they like. That is the difference between a Member of Parliament and a worker in the workshop. The worker is working at the dictates of another and it makes all the difference in the world when you are a free man and can start your work when you like and stop it when you like.
Workers know nothing about that. They are working at the dictates, in many instances, of individuals who are inferior to them, mentally and physically and that is what makes it hard. That is the difference between work, as the worker understands it, and the work which Members of Parliament do. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have Whips."] Some of them that I know would require, not whips but scorpions to drive them. We are trying to make whips and scorpions that will make this Government sit up, by creating public opinion which will declare that the misery of unemployment is all wrong, and that men who are unemployed through no fault of their own should not be treated as they are being treated. The former Minister for Unemployment who is now Secretary of State for the Dominions said—and he was the first man to make such a statement on behalf of any Government in the world—that there were 1,250,000 men and women for whom neither the Government of that day nor the employers of
this country could find employment. There was no work for them no matter how able they were, no matter how temperate they were—they might all be total abstainers and it made no difference—no matter how good they were as workers, no matter what education they had.
We said at the time, and I say it again, that you have no right to treat the unemployed as if they were an army of criminals. They ought to be treated with justice and respect and there is no Member of this Committee, irrespective of his party opinions, who would mete out to any of his fellows, if he had to do it personally, the standard of life represented by 15s. 3d. per week. But that is what you are responsible for—you who claim to be God-fearing men. When the present Dominions Secretary was the Minister dealing with unemployment the number was 1,250,000; to-day there are over 3,000,000 unemployed. This Government cannot get them work. The employers of labour cannot get them work. Then you are committing one of the most hideous sins before God in condemning those men to a standard of life of 15s. 3d. and giving to their children a standard of life of 2s. a week. It cannot be done. You are murderers, that is what you are, murderers and robbers—a Government of murderers and robbers to treat the working class in this way. [Laughter.] You can laugh if you like, but there is not one of your wives who could keep one of your children on 2s. a week, with all your outstanding ability. I would like to see Lady Londonderry attempting to do it on 2s. a week. I would like to see the Queen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—or any member of the Royal Family—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has been long enough in the House to know that he must sit down when I rise. He has also been long enough in the House to know that he must not bring the Royal Family into the Debate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have got to be prepared to be reprimanded by you, Captain Bourne. I will accept the reprimand, but that will not stop me from doing it at another time—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Order!"] I will accept the punishment willingly that you put on me—[Interruption] —but—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we shall get on better if hon. Members do not provoke the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was pointing out the standard of life that is meted out to innocent men, women, and children in this country—not Indians, not Chinese, not Russians, not Germans, but English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, our own kith and kin. That is the standard of life under this unemployment insurance scheme that we are discussing. There is no place to which they can go to augment it. 15s. 3d. is the highest, and 2s. to maintain a child. Think on it. Think on a state of affairs like that. This is supposed to be the richest, the most powerful Empire in the world, and this is the condition that it metes out to its unfortunate fellow-countrymen who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I can remember the time when individuals were unemployed because they were not effective, because they were not as competent as others, because they were not as regular in their duties and could not be depended on to get to their work at six in the morning. That is when we started work, and stopped at six at night. Then, when anyone was unemployed, it was said: "Oh, he is not fit, he is lazy," and so on, but that day has gone.
Now you are faced with a situation of millions of decent men and women for whom there is no work, and all that you give them is 15s. 3d. for a full-fledged man. Could that maintain any man here? Is there any man here who believes that he could be maintained, in health, on 15s. 3d.? Does he believe that his wife could maintain a child on 2s. a week? You know you could not. A number of you are still blessed with a conscience and can still hear the "still small voice," and I am doing my best to quicken it, to get you to understand that this House, as well as this Government, is responsible for meting out to these folk these hellish conditions. Every Member in this House, even those who are looking so disgusted at me, would find it hellish if they had to go under these conditions. All their life they have known something better, and they would
go and make a hole in the Thames before suffering these terrible conditions. There is no doubt about it, and, that being the case they have no right to impose these conditions on the working class of our country.
Our country, in my opinion, can afford to give everyone in it, whether working or not, a comfortable life. I have proved, and it is irrefutable, that there is no work for these people to do. Therefore, this country is rich enough to give every one of them, whether they are working or not, a comfortable life. There is enough and to spare. There never was such a time in the history of the world as to-day. The great trouble that we are faced with at the moment is not a shortage; we are faced with an abundance, a super-abundance, of everything that is necessary to give men, women and children a comfortable life, and this all-powerful Government is in control of all this super-abundance, of which we are the joint heirs, that has been handed down from age to age, down to us to-day, till at the moment we are living in the age that the prophets dreamed about, an age of super-abundance of everything that man requires to give him a comfortable life. Nobody knows this better than does the Prime Minister, because the chief of this Government knows that everything that I am saying now is God's truth.
Instead of the Government facing the situation in a generous fashion or even in an intelligent or, as they would say on other occasions, in a British fashion, they have faced it in a cruel and callous fashion and have reduced Britishers to the coolie level. They have satisfied themselves in their own minds that 15s. 3d. is enough to enable a man to live and procreate his species. They bring down his wages to that level because under capitalism it is a fundamental tenet that working-class men should only get enough to enable them to live and to procreate their species. That is the level to which you have got the workers now. My words may be harsh, but they are irrefutable. My colleagues in the Glasgow Town Council have been fighting the public assistance committee to get some concession now while the weather is good, while the sun is shining, believing that now they should make provision for the time:
When chill November's surly blast Made fields and forests bare.
But in Dixon's ironworks in Glasgow they are paying 36s. a week for doing one of the hardest and most laborious jobs that a man can possibly do, that is, handling pig iron and loading it into trucks. For that they get 36s. a week for 48 hours. That is an argument that is used against increasing unemployment relief. Employers can get workers to work for 36s. a week, so they say that it is a mistake to pay £2 a week to a man and wife and three children for doing nothing. Two shillings a week is given to maintain a human being, and then you say you are not reducing Britons to coolie level. When the country gave the Government a doctor's mandate and surrendered itself to the Government, even the unemployed voted for them. All my opponents have fought me clean and straight, and my opponent in the last election distinctly told the people that he was in favour of the cut. Yet the unemployed voted for him. Was it because they were in favour of the cuts? It was because those who had the ear of the working-class at that time said, "We know that this is very hard, and we would not do it unless we were forced, but there is a set of circumstances over which we have no control, and, if you send us into power and give us a powerful majority in order that we may stabilise Britain and get the other powers to recognise that the Government have the people of Britain behind them; we will deal generously with you."
How generously have the Government dealt with them? Unemployment, instead of decreasing, has increased. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] There may be here and there instances of a number getting into work, and in the Clydebank area of my constituency there are 3,000 fewer unemployed to-day than in February. That is not the case all over the country, however. I wish that the men who have taken on the responsibility of being Members of the House of Commons at this juncture would face this question seriously and not try to hide their heads in the sand like the ostrich. I wish they would face up to it and not be guided by the idea that unemployment is getting less, and that, as the Lord President of the Council has said time and time again,
we are just about to get round the corner. We will never get round the corner until the Government decide to increase the purchasing power of the mass of the people. There is no other way out. The Government have believed in reductions and have always said that this is a worldwide crisis. Every statesman in other countries has faced it from the same angle and have tried to face the problem of superabundance by reducing the purchasing power of their people. We have done so to try to compete with people in foreign countries, and then those foreign countries, in reply, cut down their folks' wages.
In 1929 I introduced a Bill to make reductions of wages illegal. Anybody with any common sense who calmly considers the proposal I put forward at that time will see that it would have saved the situation. Little did the professions think, and little did the Civil Service think, that such reductions would come their way. It was thought that only the horny-handed sons of toil would be affected. It was the present Prime Minister who gave me the cue for my Bill, because before I introduced it, and at a time when the Tories were worrying him, he said "If there are to be reductions it will be a case of reductions all round." The Tories of that day cheered him. It has been a case of reductions all round, lowering the purchasing power of the working class. The only way out now is to increase the purchasing power of the working class. We on these benches say that, to start with, the money of the unemployed, who are furthest down the social scale, ought to be increased.
I suggest to the Government that they should increase the unemployment allowance to £1 per week for a man and 30s. for a man and a wife, with 5s. for each child. I am perfectly satisfied that that is the way out. We have 3,000,000 unemployed, and more than 2,000,000 of them are heads of families. If we were to give that increase there would be an additional 10s. a week in more than 2,000,000 homes. They are desperate for that money. The mothers would spend that extra 10s. in the grocers' shops and in the boot shops. They would spend it in clothing their children and in making preparations for the winter that is ahead of us. There are millions of those folk who for years have not been able to buy a new stitch of clothing or new furniture
or bedding. There we have a great market lying at our very doors. Those people would rush to purchase what they need and that would mean that the retail shops —and the co-operative societies would do well under this—would sell out; they in turn would have to go to the wholesalers, and the wholesalers would go to the manufacturers. Inside six months, if not three months, the wheels of industry in this country would be humming as they have never hummed since the War. That is my contribution as a way out.
Members are laughing who have been in power for years and have tried the opposite procedure. They have tried increasing the hours of the workers. I can remember when the Bill was introduced to increase the hours of the miners that a Minister said he would not be doing it if he did not believe in his innermost being—I am quoting his exact words—that by the miners doing a little bit extra it would set the wheels of industry humming. It was from him that I got that phrase. He knew that he was asking something extra of the miners, and that he believed they were not being paid in accordance with the toil which they endured. We have tried all the things which I have recounted; we have increased the hours of the workers, reduced their purchasing power, impoverished them, made cuts even in the education of their children, even in the feeding of their children. We designated the present Chancellor of the Exchequer the "baby starver" because he cut off the children's milk. Everything has been done except trying the humane way, trying a Christian approach. Members here claim to be Christians. What deeds are done in the name of Christianity in this House? They can take it from me that sooner or later the day of reckoning will-come, because as a Scotsman— [Laughter] —I will say what some of the rest of you are if you irritate me—as well as a Briton, I do not believe that my race is going to sit calmly by and submit to being pulled down to the level of the coolie.
I do not believe that Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen and Welshmen are going to sit humbly by and see their standard of life gradually lowered. Every liberty, even the dignity of the House of Commons, is being insulted, and insulted in the most treacherous and callous possible manner. It has been insulted
here to-day. We are discussing the most serious question that the House or the country can face. Tens of thousands of the best men and women that the sun has ever shone upon have no place in the scheme of things, and the Government are making no provision to get round that state of affairs. [Interruption.] I am the second Member to-day who has been subjected to nothing but interruptions and insults, because we are voicing the sentiments of the folk whom we represent. It has been the outstanding characteristic of this House to allow one to express one's point of view.

Captain DOWER: So it has been to-night.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It requires somebody of my build and physique to stand here and deliver this speech. Hon. Members have tried to put me off, just us they tried to do with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie). We speak not only on behalf of our constituents, but I am speaking on behalf of 250,000 engineers in my union. [An HON. MEMBER: "They got you back !"] They never turned me down. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hartland) has done nothing but try to irritate me all night. Some of you think that he is doing a good service, but I can assure you, from the point of view of the best interests of Britain, that he is doing Britain a disservice. I hope that the Committee will not turn a deaf ear to all the pleadings that have been made on behalf of the British working class. It has to be driven home to this House of Commons that poverty is rampant in Britain, and that there are parts of Britain that are a standing disgrace. It is the duty of the House of Commons to end all those disgraces. I come to the Minister of Labour, because it is his duty now. I know he has not power to find work for the unemployed; that is not his business; we found that out during the Labour Government's term of office in 1924. It is not the business of the Minister of Labour; it is the business of the Board of Trade and others.
But that is by the way. The administration of unemployment insurance is, however, the business of the Minister of Labour and he can go before the Cabinet. I know that the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the post at the moment is not aggressive enough for the job, and
therefore I want to push him all I can— I mean that he is not aggressive enough in the Cabinet. I suggest that it is his business, and his Under-Secretary can support him, to tell the Cabinet the conditions that prevail in Britain to-day, and that the money that he has to disburse is no use for the job—it is quite inadequate. Neither the Under-Secretary nor the Minister of Labour could maintain himself on 15s. 3d. I know, because I have gone the whole gamut, that it cannot be done—it is not possible to maintain onself in health. You cannot maintain a child on 2s. a week. That being the case, I want the Minister to go to the Cabinet and tell them how impossible it is, and how worrying his job is. I told the Minister on another occasion that my business here was to leave him with a conscience. If I have aroused one spark of humanity in the Members of the House by my speech to-night, my purpose is served, and I am quite well satisfied.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: It is not my intention to follow the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) into a general review of the whole unemployment problem in all its aspects, but I want to bring to the attention of the Minister three small practical points, with which I believe the Government could deal by administrative action, thereby alleviating a great deal of the suffering and ill-feeling that exists in connection with the administration of the means test. There has been formed in my constituency an unemployed league, consisting of men who are out of work and on the means test, and whose one desire is not any political object, but to do the best they can for themselves as unemployed men, from both the local and the national point of view. They have arrived at certain conclusions, to which I desire briefly to refer because no doubt they apply equally to other parts of the country.
The Ministry of Labour have been trying for some time past to co-ordinate the system of administration in different parts of the country, without, I believe, very much success. What I would propose now is that they should issue a circular to public assistance committees, not by way of an instruction, because I understand that they cannot do that without a change in the law, but as guidance
from the Ministry of Labour out of the wealth of their experience, and in particular with regard to the scale on which the means test should be administered. Nothing causes more ill feeling, and rightly and naturally so, in the country at the present time, than the fact that in adjoining areas, or even in the same area with different committees from day to day, cases are dealt with on different lines. You get a scale varying considerably from one district to another. I suggest that the Minister should fix a maximum and a minimum scale, issue it as advice and guidance to all committees and allow them, between the upper and lower level, to use their discretion and to fix it in accordance with the needs of the particular case. That would avoid a great deal of the ill feeling that now exists. I hope my hon. Friend will not say he has no power to do this. I am merely suggesting administrative action by way of guidance, and, speaking with all the authority of the Ministry of Labour, it is bound to have a profound influence on public assistance committees. In fixing this scale some regard should be had to the cost of living.
I hope my hon. Friend will consider whether some guidance cannot be given in the matter of the allowance for children. The chief medical officer of the Board of Education, Sir George Newman, in his report for 1931 referred to this matter and said it might be assumed that 5s. 6d. per head was a reasonable rate, but in the case of delicate children there was a good deal to be said in favour of increasing the milk ration to a pint and a half daily, in which case the supply of meat and fish might be suitably reduced, and substituting butter for margarine. That would raise the cost to approximately 6s. a week. The actual figure that is being allowed is 2s. I hope my hon. Friend will consider whether some guidance cannot be given to the committees considerably to increase this scale, which I think is the worst feature of the whole system. It has been calculated that 60 per cent. of the income of a family living on the subsistence level ought to be spent on food. It is clear that under the present system they are not able to spend anything like that; therefore, they are receiving less food than they are entitled to receive on a proper level. It has further been calculated, as the result
of inquiries made in a number of family budgets in London, that 35 per cent. is being spent on rent. That is twice what is allowed in the Ministry of Labour index. It shows a very serious state of affairs when such large sums are spent on things other than food.
The question of the proper definition of family, again, causes a great deal of ill feeling in the country, unnecessarily, because it could be solved, and there should be a general guidance laid down for the whole country. In some areas practically everyone living in a house who is remotely related, or even unrelated, is counted as part of the family. In other cases it is only the father, mother and children. I hope the Minister can lay down that in his opinion the definition of a family should be what is generally understood by the word. There is a very small point on which I think a good deal could be done to ease the ill-feeling. It should be laid down definitely that, wherever there is dissatisfaction with the determination that is made, there should be a personal right of rehearing. I know that is the usual practice, but, if the Minister were to include some reference to the point in his circular and urge that in all cases, unless there was some very strong reason to the contrary, a personal hearing should be given, so that a man could feel that the whole of the facts had been investigated in detail face to face on the committee, it would do a great deal of good. I am making the suggestions in what I hope is a helpful sense, because I realise that we cannot do anything on a big scale to-night to deal with the matter. But I believe that if these points were considered and dealt with we should make the present system, still harsh and unkind as it would be, more bearable than it is at the present moment.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said that he made the suggestions in his speech in a helpful spirit. They might have been helpful on a Ministry of Health vote, but they are entirely out of order on a Ministry of Labour Estimate. I think also that anyone listening to the speeches of hon. Members would find it difficult to realise that we were in effect asking for a sum of £24,000,000 sterling, offset by a reduction in the deficiency
grant of £1,600,000, in order to make a total contribution from the Exchequer funds of £76,000,000 towards the support of the unemployed. That particular item has hardly been dealt with in a single speech.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely, I suggested that you should ask for more.

Mr. HUDSON: The suggestion of the hon. Member, I am afraid was submerged in the 60 minutes of other suggestions which he was good enough to inflict upon us.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I finished my speech with it.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who opened the Debate, made a great point of repeating the accusations of Wednesday of last week when dealing with the alleged decrease in the standard of living and the sufferings which were being incurred by the unemployed. As I said on Friday, no one would deny that there are bound to be individual cases of suffering and hardship when you are dealing with 2,500,000 unemployed for prolonged periods of time, but that there is any general lowering of the standards of living to an extent which would in any way endanger the health of the people of this country is, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said, entirely untrue. He said that the report which he would render on the state of nutrition was surprising in its encouragement and was a tribute both to the excellence of the national system of dealing with the evils of unemployment and the devotion and common sense of the parents of the country in looking after their children and to the good work done in this matter by local authorities.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place, called attention to the growth in the feeding of school children as an argument in favour of the case that there was considerable under-nourishment. I prefer to regard such a small increase as has taken place in school feeding as showing that there is no ground whatever for the statement that there is any general under-nourishment. It is precisely part of the general provision made by the State and local authorities to pre-
vent undernourishment, and, if proof were needed of the excellent way in which the children are at present looked after, he went on to quote from the fourth annual report of the Department of Health for Scotland. I find that on pages 68 and 69 dealing specifically with school children the report says that the proportion of children who were examined in school in the year 1923 whose nutrition was average or above average was 91.9 in 1929, 1930 and 1931 it was 93 per cent., and now it has risen to 94.5 per cent., a striking increase. Taking the number of children whose nutrition was below average the percentage was 7.9 in 1923, and it has now fallen to 5.3, while if you take the percentage where nutrition was very bad, it was 0.3 in 1923, and is now 0.2. All the statistics go to prove that there is no justification for the accusations of hon. Members opposite.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). I find it very difficult to argue with the hon. Member, because he goes on repeating arguments which have been shown to be entirely without foundation. He repeated to-day the old argument that he used in Durham, to the effect that the Commissioners could only find 44 cases, that the amount of saving they were making was only £37 a week, and he asked whether it was worth while to pay £1,000 a week in order to save £37 in 44 cases. The number of cases in which the Commissioners have decreased the determinations made by the Durham County Council is about 14,000. In other words, there were 14,000 cases that the Commissioners considered were receiving under the county council more than was necessary, and it is in respect of those 14,000 cases and not of the 44 cases that the substantial saving to which I have referred was made. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the Commissioners are only saving £37 and then complain of the fact that they are saving over £200,000 a year. He must make up his mind which of the two arguments he intends to use, because he cannot use both. The fact is, that the additional cost to the country of putting the Commissioners in is about £30,000 a year, and the total cost of administering the transitional payment is
£56,000, while the saving is something over £200,000. Therefore, we feel justified in having put the Commissioners in.

Mr. BATEY: I said that in the commissioners' report they gave what I believe is all they could give, namely, 44 cases. The amount saved on those 44 cases is £37 18s. 6d. a week, and for that we are paying over £l,000 a week. Naturally, they have reduced other cases but they have reduced those cases because you say that they have to save their expenses and they are doing it to save their expenses.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member's intervention proves that I was right when I said that it is no use trying to argue with him because he repeats arguments for which I have shown there is no shadow of foundation. He said that the commissioners were robbing the poor in the county of Durham. That statement is entirely without foundation, because no less than 70 per cent. of the determinations made by the commissioners are at full rates. Therefore in 70 per cent. of the cases they are being treated as generously as they were under the county council, and there can be no question in those cases of robbing the poor.

Mr. BATEY: I said—

Mr. HUDSON: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to proceed. I listened to him for an hour. In the cases where the commissioners have given determinations at less than full rate or nil determinations, those were not cases where there were no resources coming into the household. They have given determinations at less than full rate in cases where there were other resources or other incomes coming into the household, and it is unfair to describe that as robbing the poor.

Mr. BATEY: Will the hon. Member accept the challenge to investigate the cases?

Mr. HUDSON: There is no need to investigate the cases. The cases have been given in the commissioners' report. During the last three days hon. Members opposite have been continually saying that this Government have done nothing for the unemployed. They are continually saying that the general state of the country is no better than it was before we came into office. The hon. Member
for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was driven to admit that in his own constituency there has been a slight improvement in employment, but he said that was an isolated case and did not apply over the whole area of the country. I am asking for a sum of £22,500,000, making a total provision of £76,000,000. On the last occasion I suggested that one of the reasons why the cut in benefit was necessary was the extravagance of hon. Members opposite, and that that extravagance was one of the causes of the enormous increase in unemployment. If the National Government had not come into power, if the Labour party had continued in power and unemployment had continued to rise as it had risen during the time that they were in office, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street standing at this Box would have been budgeting for a total expenditure, not of £116,000,000, but of £190,000,000, of which £160,000,000 would have had to come direct out of the Exchequer instead of the £76,000,000 for which we are asking. I cannot conceive that if that had been the case the position of the unemployed would have been as good as it is to-day.
When hon. Members criticise us we are entitled to remind them of what happened when they were in office. Between September, 1929 and May, 1931, every single industry in this country, with the solitary exception of the tailoring industry, showed a substantial increase in unemployment. Between September, 1931, and May, 1933, a corresponding period, the huge majority of industries in this country have shown a decrease in unemployment. The increase in unemployment under the Labour Government in the first of these periods was 1,300,000, while the decrease of unemployment since we have been in office amounts to 240,000. There is, therefore, no justification for the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that things are not better. I do not suggest for one moment that we have definitely turned the corner and I would deprecate any undue optimism at this stage, but we can claim that we have stopped the rot, the degeneration, which was taking place under the Labour Government.
I do not often weary the House with figures, but I ask them to bear with me for a moment while I show the sort of thing that has happened in industry in various parts of the country. I take,
first, some typical industries, large groups of industries, in which unemployment increased during the Labour Government's term of office and in which unemployment has decreased since we took office. Take general engineering, which affects many parts of the country. In general engineering the increase of unemployment under the Labour party, from September, 1929, to May, 1931, was 101,000, while the improvement in employment under the present Government has been 31,000. Take cotton, which affects my own County of Lancashire. Under the Labour party unemployment increased by 141,000, and employment has improved under the present Government by 115,000. I hope the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will listen to these figures.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have seen them already.

Mr. HUDSON: These are new figures.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the hon. Member wish us to understand that the Government are responsible for employment and unemployment? Suppose in a few months' time there is an increase in unemployment, are we then to say that the Government are responsible? Does he maintain that there was no world crisis during the period of the Labour Government, and that the crisis with which the World Economic Conference has been called to deal has only arisen since the Labour Government went out of office?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. But what I did point out on Friday was that no one has denied the immense influence that world conditions have on this country. We always maintained that we should never succeed in getting employment back to normal until we could get world prosperity restored. What did happen was that, whereas during the two years that the Labour party were in office the conditions in this country deteriorated faster than they did in the world at large, since we have been in office they have deteriorated at a lesser rate. I take one instance, a new instance to-night, the instance of the coal industry. The coal industry was quoted by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, who accused us, or our policy, of being solely responsible for the distress in the coalmining areas. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines will have an oppor-
tunity of dealing with that statement in full next week. But I would point this out: Whereas the drop in the world export trade of coal amounted to 11.3 per cent. and the drop in the European export trade in coal amounted to 9 per cent., the drop in the British export trade has amounted to only 7 per cent. In other words, the action we have taken as a Government has served to minimise and reduce the shock to our industries compared with the rest of the world.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that the case of his constituency was almost unique, in showing a decrease in unemployment. Perhaps it may be of interest to him to know that in May no less than 90 out of 100 groups into which industry is divided for statistical purposes show decreases of unemployment, and no less than 600 out of 700 areas of the country.
One final observation I would offer. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin), in a very thoughtful speech the other day, said that he belonged to a generation which had not known the happy days of pre-War normality, which many of the economic professors urge us to hold as a goal at which to aim; and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) suggested that those who thought that the conditions of employment or the nature of employment of the great masses of our people would be the same in future as it had been in the past, were building on a very unsafe foundation. I think that that is very largely true. There can be little doubt that in the course of the next few years we have to build up some new form of economic organisation. Exactly what that form will be I do not know, nor how long it will take, but of one thing I am certain, and that is that if you are going to do it successfully you will need the very highest qualities of statesmanship, and amongst the essentials of statesmanship is courage, especially political courage, the willingness to tell the public unpalatable truths when it is necessary in the public interest. In the long run, politically, I believe that courage pays, because the British working man likes— to use the vernacular—guts, whether it is in the case of a horse, a boxer, or a politician. I suggest to the Opposition that, judged by the Debates of the last three days, one of the qualities that hon.
Members opposite lack is that particular characteristic. I do not say that in any party spirit. It is a matter of extreme national importance.
One of the most disturbing elements in the industrial situation to-day is the definite loss of influence and membership among trade unions. There is no doubt at all that trade unions are failing to make up from among the young the inevitable losses they suffer through retirement and old age. The decrease in the influence and membership of trade unions is not in the best interests of industry, but that it exists is a fact, and, from what I can learn, one of the main reasons for that drop in the membership and influence is discontent on the part of the rank and file with their leadership, and a belief on the part of the rank and file that their leaders are not showing the essential qualities of leadership. The Trades Union Congress the other day, through the mouth of Mr. Citrine and others, stated that the Trades Union Congress intends to defend the institutions of this country under which it has grown and to resist dictatorship from the Left or the Right. I am very glad to hear it, but I suggest that they are going the wrong way about it and that the action of hon. Members, in opposing as they have been doing for the last three days in this House and for several months on the platform Measures which, though unpopular, they know perfectly well in their heart of hearts are necessary in the public interest and inevitable under any Government, is not the way to allay public discontent. Nay, rather it may well be the best method of bringing about that dictatorship which they profess to fear.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman, whatever may be said about him, will never be charged with lack of guts or political sagacity. If he had only spoken for about another 15 minutes, there would have been no unemployment problem in this country at all. I clearly remember listening in 1922 to Sir Montague Barlow at a time when we had between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 unemployed. He had so many schemes in his mind and unrolled them one by one that I began to feel that, when I left the House of Commons, there would not be one unemployed man left. The hon.
Gentleman is so courageous and optimistic in his expressions about the marvellous things the Government have accomplished in the last two years that he has satisfied his supporters that all is right with the best of all possible worlds. Will he deny these facts? When the present Government took office, we had about 100,000 unemployed who had been out of work for 12 months, but at this moment we have 500,000 who have been unemployed for 12 months.

Mr. HUDSON: There were many more than 100,000. The figure when we went out of office was much less than 100,000 and, when the hon. Member and his friends were in office, the figures increased materially. I cannot say off-hand the exact figures, but they were very much above that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Without quibbling too much, will the hon. Member confess that, since the present Government have been in office, the number of unemployed persons out of work for 12 consecutive months has materially increased and more than doubled? That is not to the credit of the hon. Gentleman. The next point I would put to the hon. Gentleman, who nearly made us agree that unemployment had been solved, is this. Will he agree that, when we took office, we had about 750,000 in the transition stage while at the present moment there are 1,400,000? Does he deny that? The number of people, therefore, who have been out of work over six months has increased from 750,000 to 1,400,000 since the Government took office. Will he deny that the Government have been so marvellously efficient in dealing with the unemployment problem that, while in the first quarter of 1932 we had 1,195,000 receiving Poor Law relief, the number for the first quarter this year was 1,455,000 or an increase of a quarter of a million since the Government took office? I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will bear in mind that the very facetious speeches which the Parliamentary Secretary makes about "guts." do not resolve the problem which confronts the Government.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the Committee into thinking that the increase in the number which he has stated to be in receipt of Poor Law relief is in addition to the figures
of unemployment which we publish. In so far as they are heads of households or persons normally dependent on insurable employment for their livelihood, they are included in our figures of unemployment and included in the decrease to which I have referred.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not misleading the Committee and while I am not anxious that anybody should miss his tram or omnibus, all interjections will be thankfully received if the hon. Gentleman can resolve the difficulties of one of the unemployed. I think he will find, however, that he cannot do so by optimistic statements about the increase in the number of unemployed during the Labour Government's term of office and its decrease since. He would lead one to suppose that he is the only person in the world who has never heard of the international crisis. It does not seem to have dawned upon him, even yet, that there is an international Economic Conference sitting somewhere in a museum—probably the proper place for such a conference. The hon. Gentleman on Friday made one of the most remarkable speeches I have ever heard in the House of Commons— sometimes very lucid, frequently on the borderline between hitting and missing the truth. Before recalling some of his statements I would remind him and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that in this Debate not a solitary Member has spoken in favour of the administration of unemployment insurance. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) invited the hon. Gentleman to have minimum and maximum scales. In other words he agrees with a means test but not this means test.
The hon Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) agrees with a means test but says, "Let us have a better one than this." He says that there is bitterness and resentment which may even bring down the Government. Therefore, he says, do something to mitigate the troubles of the necessitous areas. He repeated to-night what I heard the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson state time and time again when he was appealing that something should be done for the necessitous areas. We are still appealing for the necessitous areas and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough is a supporter of the Government. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) is also a supporter of the means test but
not this means test. He, I think, must have satisfied the Parliamentary Secretary—well, no, that is impassible but at any rate he satisfied me and many other hon. Members—that in Dundee there was real physical deterioration. The Parliamentary Secretary denies that there is any general deterioration and quotes some medical officers' reports. I am not prepared to take even medical officers' reports from Newcastle or from Timbuctoo in face of the experience of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) went further and told the Parliamentary Secretary that in the administration of the means test in Birmingham in at least 46 cases, families had been broken up in the course of seven weeks. That is a most damning indictment of the administration of the system by one who is a supporter of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman, however, says that what we require is statesmanship and guts. Well, it requires some guts to break up homes at that rate. The hon. Gentleman made a point on Friday in his speech by saying that the Opposition did not discriminate between a contributory and a non-contributory scheme, but the hon. Gentleman himself fails to appreciate that every Englishman has the right to live, and I do not know whether he is aware of it, but there is no right to die in this country, and if one attempts to take one's own life, and fails, he has soon got an escort, his housing problem is solved, and he becomes one of His Majesty's guests. We say that if he has not the right to die, at least he ought to have the right to work or to live. The hon. Gentleman also said on Friday that we want to get back to an insurance system in which there shall be some relation to the contributions paid and the number of benefits received. We are not hostile to an insurance system, and never have been, but what are you going to do with those who are outside insurance?
Again, the hon. Gentleman says that we must have a system in which there is some cleavage and distinction between men who are in and men who are outside the employable field. We have no objection to that, but what we say, and shall insist upon as long as we are here, is that if, as a result of an economic system over which millions of workpeople
have no control, they are denied the right to work, then at least those people, whether in or outside insurance, are entitled to live. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his administration is preventing certain people having the privilege of living. They have the privilege of a slow, terrible starvation, but not the privilege to live. The hon. Gentleman said on Friday that he noted with interest that all their supporters, that is to say, Conservative supporters, presumably, agreed that
a definite cleavage and distinction should be made between employable men in the industrial field and those who cannot be so classed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 443, Vol. 279.]
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in what category the men are who cannot be classed as in the industrial field? Does he refer to the 1,400,000 in the transition list? Is there an age limit? Is there to be a physical qualification? Are we to determine whether or not they are in the industrial field by good looks or by their political faith? At least we are entitled to know, and that prophecy of the hon. Gentleman rather disturbs me as to the contents of the Government's new Bill when it is brought in. We can distinguish between an insurance scheme and one that is not. We understand, of course, that an insurance scheme can only pay out what it receives in, but we also understand that men who are willing and anxious to work are entitled to live if you fail to provide them with reasonable means by which to live. Referring to the means test, the hon. Gentleman said:
My own opinion is that a single case of those quoted in their report by the commissioners …is sufficient justification, by itself, for the means test."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 445, Vol. 279.]
One single case satisfies the hon. Gentleman, out of all the millions of cases where justice or less than justice is done. Will this case satisfy him? It is the case of an old lady of 73, an old age pensioner in receipt of 10s. a week. She has a workman of 53 lodging with her. He is a highly respectable workman and, through no fault of his own, his colliery is closed down and he is out of work. He receives his 15s. 3d. for 26 weeks and falls under transitional payment. His case goes before the public assistance committee, and they reduce the amount to 10s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? It requires some "guts" on the
part of the Parliamentary Secretary to justify that. This is not even a family means test. There is no relationship between the old lady and her lodger, who for a long time has been good enough to maintain her to the extent that the 10s. failed to do it. This man is deliberately robbed by the hon. Gentleman's administration. What happens to him? He knows that he cannot live, and he jumps into the canal and takes his life. I put some part of the responsibility for that life on the hon. Gentleman.
Here is the case of another man 38 years of age, who is also living with an old age pensioner. He has fallen into the transitional payment stage and his 15s. 3d. is reduced to 14s. That leaves the old lady and her lodger to manage as best they can on 24s. a week out of which they have to pay 8s. rent. There is no relationship between the old age pensioner and the lodger. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that sort of administration? He must agree with it because, not content with that, his Department and the Ministry of Health jointly condemned the West Riding County Council for having been too generous, and this is the sort of generosity that they are displaying in their administration of the means test. Let me give another case, because I want the hon. Gentleman to say honestly and conscientiously whether he agrees with this sort of thing. This is a case in my division at Rossington of a man with five children up to 15 or 17 years of age. Only one is working at a colliery, working one week and missing one. The total transitional payment should be £l 9s. 3d., but, because the boy earns £1 9s. 8d.—of which 15s. 4d. is deducted at the colliery office, leaving him 14s. 6d.—the £1 9s. 3d. is reduced to 16s. Therefore, there is £1 10s. 6d. to maintain eight persons, including the one who is working. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is generous?

Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the deductions at the colliery are for?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I can give the hon. Gentleman details if he wishes.

Mr. PIKE: It will be only fair.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Twelve shillings and sixpence is for rent. Then unemployment insurance and national health insurance
are deducted; his old age pension contribution is also deducted, although he is not likely to live to receive it. Altogether the deductions total 15s. 4d. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. McKEAG: Does the hon. Gentleman say that these items total 15s. 4d.?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I said the 12s. 6d. rent, unemployment insurance, national health insurance, pension fund, Doncaster infirmary contribution and the rest do make up 15s. 4d. per week. The net result is that there is 30s. a week to support eight people. Does the hon Gentleman agree that that is fair or generous? The hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by saying:
The conclusion that I draw from that is that there are certain elements within our control, that it was the extravagance of the administration of the Labour party that caused the increase in unemployment and the reduction in the standard of living, and it is the husbanding of national resources that we have been responsible for that is improving the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 468, Vol. 279.]
Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is husbanding the resources of the State to act in this way in the case of a young man of 19 working down a pit, with a father and mother and five brothers and sisters, reducing them to 3s. 9d. each per week? It requires some guts to justify such administration.
I think the hon. Gentleman strayed very near to the borders of economising truth when, in referring to the value of the present unemployment benefit, he tried to make out that owing to the fall in the cost of living the cash payment is actually worth more than it was in 1924. He said:
At the time the Labour party were in office, in spite of the relief that they granted to the unemployed, by the steps they took to promote relief works, and so on, the real wages of the people steadily fell."— OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 454. Vol. 279.]
Here is a volume written by Professor J. H. Richardson, of Leeds, for the International Labour Office. Professor Richardson says:
The Ministry of Labour has estimated.
Then he proceeds with a long paragraph that I need not read, and gives a long tabular statement wherein he shows the real wages from 1920 to 1931 based, note, on figures supplied by the Ministry of Health. In 1928 real wages
were between 3 and 6 points above 1914. In 1929, our first year of office, real wages were a 6 to 9 per cent. increase. In 1930 real wages were between 10 and 12 per cent. increase. In 1931 real wages were 16 per cent. above 1914. Will the hon. Gentleman deny those figures? If not will he take an early opportunity of withdrawing Friday's statement?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not know exactly what the hon. Member is quoting. I have not seen the figures.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Here is the book.

Mr. HUDSON: They seem to correspond very closely with the second set of figures I gave. The first set of figures I quoted from the figures issued by the Trade Union Congress. They took into account real wages allowing for unemployment and short time and I pointed out that if we took actual full time wages the increase was, speaking from memory, 22 per cent. and that very closely tallies with the figure for real wages; but that only takes account of men working full time. But the figures I quoted were from figures issued by the Labour party themselves.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When replying to a Debate the hon. Gentleman ought not to be so near the border line between telling the truth and missing the truth, because if he wanted to be fair and honest to the House he would have quoted—

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member has accused me of sailing very near the wind. I cannot really allow that to pass. In winding up I went out of my way to be completely fair; and in order that I should not get any advantage from the official figures from my Department I quoted figures issued by the Trade Union Congress, and more could not be done.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should hesitate a long time before I challenge the hon. Gentleman's honesty or anything approaching that, but the OFFICIAL REPORT is there. This is a cutting from the OFFICIAL REPORT. If the hon. Gentleman quotes some document which does not state the facts or figures which are produced by his Department that is his funeral, and not mine. He states that the real wages of the people "steadily fell," whereas he must see from this tabular statement provided by the
Minister of Labour that real wages steadily increased.

Mr. HUDSON: Full-time wages.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman cannot have either full-time or half-time wages—

Mr. HUDSON: Finish my quotation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: —because in regard to those figures from which the hon. Gentleman was quoting on Friday, I put down two questions to the right hon. Gentleman to-day, asking for the comparable figures for this year. I have them. The comparable figures for this year, about which the hon. Gentleman boasted, showed that the cost of living having continued to decrease since the Government took office, was now round about 136 instead of 144. The real increase in wages, over the pre-War standard, is 21 to-day and, as 21 is higher than 16, the hon. Gentleman says to the Committee "Although real wages steadily decreased while the Labour Government were in office, the moment we took office, they steadily increased." He quotes Ministry of Labour figures which are 21 points up, on the 1st January this year, to make that point. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, when replying to a Debate, it is not wise to quote one document because certain figures are contained in it, and some other authority where an opposition figure is possible. It is better, after all, to stand stolidly by the truth. It would not be out of place, if Ministry of Labour figures are to be used for these Debates, that all Ministry of Labour figures should be used, not some of them, as was the case on Friday last.

Mr. HUDSON: I apologise to the Committee for keeping it upon this subject. I have sent for a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Friday, and I find that I started off by quoting my authority, which was a Labour publication and not mine. I go out of my way to be fair to the hon. Member, not by quoting any authority of my own, but by quoting one of his own documents. I said:
The Labour Research Bulletin shows that, at the time the Labour party were in office, in spite of the relief that they granted to the unemployed by the steps that they took to promote relief works and so on, the real wages of the people steadily fell."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1933; col. 454, Vol. 279.]
If the hon. Member for Don Valley will look at the Labour Research Bulletin,
he will see that, from 1929 to 1930, the figures actually fell. If the hon. Gentleman will cast his eye along that column of the "Bulletin," he will see that the last two figures show a rise. My recollection is, speaking offhand, that when we went out of office the figure was 104, and that when the Labour party went out at was between 98 and 99; now it is 103.5. I have the figures here. Those are figures based on the value of wages, taking into account and making allowance for unemployment and short time.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Were they true?

Mr. HUDSON: I am going to ask him to take only full-time wages, that is not allowing for unemployment. If you take the actual full-time figure, you will find that there is an increase of 22 per cent. What I said I stand by.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: All I want to say to the hon. Gentleman is this: I hope that hon. Members will at least appreciate that I have not raised this point exclusively for the purpose of scoring a debating point. What I think ought to be done is that, if an illustration is being given over a period of time to prove either one thing or another, comparable figures from the same period ought to be given for all; but, instead of that, the hon. Gentleman says, because it suits his purpose for the moment, whether the document spells the truth or not, whether it comes from the Conservative party, or the Labour party, or Bolshevik Russia, or anywhere else, that these figures are the truth because they come from the Ministry of Labour. At all events, this volume is written for the International Labour Office, and this information is supplied by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. HUDSON: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman, with all respect, to maintain this accusation of bad faith on my part. I quoted figures for real wages, allowing for unemployment, published by the Labour Research Bulletin, and I quoted my authority. As a matter of fact the actual figures, making the same allowances, issued by my Department, corre-

spond almost exactly; but, in order to be perfectly fair, I quoted these rather than my own authority.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As the hour is very late, I do not want to carry the point further, except to repeat these figures. The hon. Gentleman rather suspected that I had some ulterior motive in quoting only part of them. With this quotation perhaps he will agree, and I think hon. Members in every part of the House will agree, that I was justified in raising the point. The document says:
Over the whole period from the beginning of 1921 to the beginning of 1931 the level of real wages averaged only about 3 per cent. above the level of July, 1914. The position in June of each year from 1920 to 1931 is shown by the index numbers of weekly full-time wages, of money rates, and of real wages, which are tabulated below.
I invite hon. Members to read the hon. Gentleman's speech in last Friday's OFFICIAL REPORT. I invite them to take this document, which is a Library document, and look at page 19 for the quotation I have been making. They will find that from 1929 real wages gradually increased. I claim for the Labour Government no credit for that, because the real increase was wholly due to a fall in the price level. The hon. Gentleman ought not to claim credit for the real increase in 1933, for he knows that it is in spite of all the Government's works that the cost of living has continued to decrease. They have had restrictions, Customs duties, quotas, and all sorts of schemes to increase the price level, but because the price level has beaten the Government in all their works by still falling and it has increased real wages, the hon. Gentleman turns round to the House and says: "We alone did it. We are the statesmen with guts." I invite him to re-read his last two speeches and sit down and reflect for a few moments.

Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,499,900, be granted for the said Service.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 196.

Division No. 235.]
AYES.
[11.26 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Banfield, John William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, George Henry


Batey, Joseph
Dobbie, William
Jenkins, Sir William


Buchanan, George
Edwards, Charles
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Kirkwood, David


Daggar, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Lawson, John James
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Leonard, William
Mainwaring, William Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Logan, David Gilbert
Maxton, James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Lunn, William
Milner, Major James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Parkinson, John Allen



McEntee, Valentin L.
Price, Gabriel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


McGovern, John
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Penny, Sir George


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hales, Harold K.
Pike, Cecil F.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western lsles)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hartland, George A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Rea, Walter Russell


Bateman, A. L.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hornby, Frank
Robertt, Aled (Wrexham)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Howard, Tom Forrest
Robinson, John Roland


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Howltt, Dr. Alfred S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jamleson, Douglas
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Brown,Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salt, Edward W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, 'Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchan, John
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Burnett, John George
Knight, Holford
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwe ')


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Caporn, Arthur Cecli
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Castle Stewart, Earl
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Slater, John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Llddall, Walter S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Christie, James Archibald
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clarke, Frank
Mabane, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Clarry, Reginald George
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stones, James


Cook, Thomas A.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Storey, Samuel


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
McKeag, William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
McKle, John Hamilton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Magnay, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Malialleu, Edward Lancelot
Thompson, Luke


Cross, R. H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, D. R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Duckworth, George A. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Elmley, Viscount
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Milne, Charles
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fox. Sir Glfford
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morrison, William Shephard
Weymouth, Viscount


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nall, Sir Joseph
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Glucksteln, Louls Halle
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Greene, William P. C.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wise, Alfred R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pearson, William G.



Grimston, R. V.
Peat, Charles U.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Blindell and Mr. Womersley.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Company, which was Presented on the 25th day of May and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications: —

Section 5, page 2, sub-section (1), at end, insert,—
Provided that any difference under this sub-section shall be decided by two justices.
Section 5, page 3, leave out sub-section (3).

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Devon Gas Association, Limited, with respect to the Ashburton urban district, which was presented on the 29th day of May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Northampton Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 16th day of May and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Sunderland Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th day of March and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications: —
Section 3, page 2, line 20, after added limits,'insert' together with so much of such portions of the added limits.'
Section 3, page 2, line 21, leave out 'and the added limits,' and insert 'as are outside the county borough of Sunderland as constituted at the date of this Order.'
Section 3, page 2, line 29, leave out 'April,' and insert 'July.'
Section 19, page 11, after sub-section (3), insert,—
Provided that the amount so credited shall not be applicable in or towards increasing the dividend for any year on the ordinary stock of the company beyond that which would be payable for that year if one-eighth of the sum calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) of section sixteen (Division of surplus profits) of this Order were applied for the benefit of the holders of ordinary stock.'
Section 21, page 12, after sub-section (3), insert,—

(4) The amount standing to the credit of the contingencies and renewals fund of the company at the prescribed date shall be credited to the renewal fund authorised by this section.

(5) As from the prescribed date section one hundred and twenty-two of the Com-
panies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall cease to apply to the company.'"—[Dr. Burgin.]

11.38 p.m.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
referred to a Select Committee of four Members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report which shall state whether, in their opinion, the Order should be approved with or without modifications or additions, and setting out the modifications or additions, if any, which they propose, or should not be approved' and shall be laid before the House, together with a copy of the Order showing the modifications and additions, if any, proposed by the Committee: that the proceedings of the Committee to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 159, and opponents of the Order shall be heard, provided that a Statement of Objection has been deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the House of Commons on or before the seventh day after the date of this Motion, but an opponent shall only be heard upon objections which have been distinctly specified in the statement.
If no Statement of Objection 6hall have been deposited within the specified time, or if all such statements so deposited have been withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order of reference to the Select Committee shall be discharged.
I move the Amendment on behalf of the Sunderland Corporation which represents the very large majority of consumers supplied by the company and I want to make it plain to the House that the local authority take a very serious view of the matter. There have been four resolutions carried in the council; therefore the Amendment I am moving has the full authority of the Sunderland town council. My object is to be as fair as possible to the Order. Its object is to substitute a basic price and a basic rate of dividend for the present maximum price and maximum dividend. On that point I think there can be no quarrel. Under the Order the company are entitled to increase their dividend beyond the basic rates of dividend if the price charged is below the basic price authorised. Well and good. If we can get a reduced cost I have no objection. The Order has been before the director of gas administration on behalf of the Board of Trade, and it has been considered by a Committee of the other House and certain modifications have been made.
No complaint whatever has been made of the Sunderland Gas Company. It is a well managed concern: I have known its management all my life. It has paid a consistent dividend since the maximum dividend was instituted in 1919, and for half a century before a full dividend, so that it has continuously paid a maximum dividend. It has also expended huge sums of money, £150,000 out of revenue, for capital purposes and has piled up its reserves by putting £6,000 to a contingency fund, and has made nominal additions to capital by the conversion of something like £86,500. It may be said that we get cheap gas in Sunderland. That is true, we have the facilities, but in a near neighbourhood they have gas at 2d. per them less. I say this because one of the results of the Order will be that apart from any effort or efficiency on their part this Company will be able to add to their basic dividend one-half per cent. straight away, which we contend should have gone to the consumers.
The explanation of that is that when the Order was enquired into by the Director of Gas Administration in the Board of Trade, the Company put forward certain estimates on which they built a basic price of 6½d. per them. The Board of Trade in granting the Order reduced the basic price to 6d., and when the matter came before the Committee of another place the promoters, in order to justify the lower basic price of 6d. per them, introduced a new item which was assessed at 27 of a 1d. per them in respect of savings which had been effected since 1931 and were reflected in the 1932 accounts. It is without precedent to include in the items making a basic price an item of savings arising from improved workings or the takings of a gas company prior to the application for the basic price being made. A new principle has been set up in the application of this Order. It can be stated without fear of contradiction that in all previous cases where basic prices have been fixed they have been looking forward from the date of the application instead of bringing in something that has happened before. The result is that this Company will be able to charge immediately this ½ per cent. extra on the basic price for which they have not worked.
That is the first count, and I think it is enough to have this matter referred to a special Committee of the House. Let me take the second count. Added to these very generous and favourable conditions there is in my opinion no real adequate provision for a revision of the basic price. A most serious position has been created. Under Clause 14 of the Order provision is made for a revision of the basic price:
If at any time after three years from the prescribed date it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the costs and charges on and incidental to the production and supply of gas have substantially altered from circumstances beyond the control of or which could not reasonably have been avoided by the company the board may if they think fit on the application of the company or of any local authority make an Order correspondingly revising the basic price.
That is all right up to a point, but there is a further circumstance arising. This Company may under this Revision Clause go on taking an unlimited supply of coke oven gas. I know that in the present circumstances they are taking supplies, but the possibility is that they may take even to the extent of the full supply, and under this Provisional Order what the Gas Company can do is to sit quiet, in a sense, as distributors or refiners of coke oven gas, and reap the rich reward of an increased dividend without any prospect at any time of revision by the authority which should regulate the statutory conditions of this company. That seems to me to be an intolerable position. I have served four years on special Committees dealing with local legislation, and in all cases that I know of, when this question of revision has come up, there has been particular care taken. That was so as recently as 1931 in the case of the Gas Light and Coke Companies Act and in the case of the Newcastle Gas Company. A provision was there made that the company or the local authority was able to apply within a specified period for a revision of the basic price, and on such an application being made the company were permitted to ask that any decrease in the cost of production due to their efficiency might be taken into account. There is no such provision in this case.
If the House is going to say to an authority that under no conditions whatever may the Board of Trade interfere or revise the basic price, it seems to me to be a very ridiculous position. I want
this matter to be referred to a special Committee. The question whether or not that course should be taken should be left to the House to determine, without the Government endeavouring to influence the decision one way or the other In another place the question whether a special gas Order ought to be referred to a Select Committee for consideration is determined by the Special Orders Committee, but this House has no such powers. If the Board of Trade says an Order must go through, we have no power to say that, if a fair case is put up, it should be referred to a committee. It may be argued that this is a Gas Order and is different to an ordinary application for a Private Bill. I have spent a good deal of time on private Bills, and it is the ordinary and reasonable procedure that these Bills should be referred to a Committee of each House. For these reasons, this Order should be referred to a special Committee.
I do not want to be sentimental, but I would remind the House that Sunderland is at present suffering, like many other centres, from an unexampled depression. We have 26,000 or more out of work, representing 70,000 out of a population of under 200,000. Of the insured male population, 57 per cent. are out of work. It seems to me contrary to the principles for which we stand to come to this House under those conditions and to make it possible, without any further effort or efficiency on the part of the company, for this gas company to embark upon adding another half per cent. to its dividend. I had been hoping that there would be some agreement reached, but that has not been the case. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I hope that he will make it possible at this late hour for the two points I have emphasised to be reconsidered and that, as far as the ruling Clause is concerned, he will be favourable to the adoption of the Clause to which I have referred.

11.53 p.m.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: At this late hour I shall put my points briefly from two aspects only. First, when this House is dealing with a commercial company which is protected by statute, it should be extremely careful how the company uses that power and it should see that that power, with the protection of the statute behind it, is used legitimately in the interests of the public. The hon.
Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) has made out a case showing that a legitimate asset is being given to this company without due credit being given on the other side of the balance, i.e., to the public. Secondly, I would point out that the railways are compelled to submit to the closest inspection and regulation by this House and the other House, while the Board of Trade can give a special power to this company and similar companies without proper supervision and regulation. One must compare the action of the Gas Light and Coke Company in 1931 in accepting a wide measure of discipline with the action of this small company in the north of England, which asks to be placed in a special position, more privileged than the position of the greatest gas company in the country. Lastly, I would ask the House to bear in mind a point which is important under the new principles of protection for industry upon which we, as a National Government, have embarked. Unless we are very careful, the special power suggested here by the Board of Trade in the case of this gas company may be applied to every other industry in the country and even by the municipality. I ask the House to protect its own powers, to protect the public as regards the price which an undertaking of this kind may claim from them and also to protect with great care the new system which is being experimented with in respect of other industries, so that the public shall not be exploited.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. STOREY: In opposing the Amendment which has been moved by the senior Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), I do not propose to deal with all the points which the local authority has made in the circular sent to Members of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is Sunderland? "] It is a place which people in the south of England ought to know more about, and if those in the south took a little more interest in the north, it would be for the public good. Stating the position in the simplest terms, the local authority has two objects in opposing this Order. First, they want an undertaking that the company will not increase its dividend for a period of two years. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment should have led the
House to think that in the next two years the company will increase its dividend. He made capital out of the fact that Sunderland is a depressed area, and argued that the company should not, therefore, increase its dividend. He knows that an undertaking was asked for and given under which the company is prepared, outside the Order, to undertake that for two years from the prescribed date in the Order, they will not pay a higher dividend than the existing maximum of 6 per cent. The second object of the local authority is that they shall be able to apply for a revision of the basic price, if the cost of production and supply is substantially diminished, in consequence of an increased supply of coke oven gas being available. The purpose of these basic price Orders to if promote efficiency and economy on the part of gas undertakings and allow of the division of the results of such economy and efficiency among consumers, employes and shareholders.
This Order provides that if any circumstances outside the control of the gas company reduce the cost of production and supply, the local authority should apply for a revision of the basic price. Therefore, a gas company can only get the benefit of the results of its own energy and not of the results of things outside its control. It is desirable that we should encourage gas undertakings to use coke oven gas which would otherwise be largely wasted. To use it requires enterprise, initiative and business acumen on the part of the management, ability to conduct difficult negotiations and the wise provision of stand-by plants. Is a company which displays these abilities to have no reward? What gas company is going to set about these difficult negotiations and the provision of this stand-by plant, if they are not to have any reward for their initiative? The House would be well advised to let the Order go through and allow the company to gain the benefit of any initiative and energy which they display.
This Order follows other Orders applying to more than 50 per cent. of the gas sold in this country. It gives the second lowest basic price in the country. The actual price of gas in Sunderland is among the lowest in the country. A lower percentage of benefit to the share-
holders than is allowed under other basic Orders is allowed under this Order. It has been thoroughly thrashed out in a Select Committee in another place. No Amendments were made in the course of that investigation in another place, except those which the company themselves offered to make and the Committee thought desirable. The chairman of the finance committee of the local authority has himself said that already sufficient expenditure, without any satisfactory result, has been incurred, and I do not think there is any reason for incurring further expenditure on further discussion.
These Orders are a method of procedure intended to be cheaper for these gas undertakings than the procedure by Act of Parliament, but if we are to have such fractious opposition as I submit is now being put up by the local authority, we are going to stultify this form of procedure. I hope the House will prevent the further waste of the ratepayers' and gas consumers' money which would be entailed by ordering another investigation by a Select Committee of this House. In asking the House to reject this Amendment, I want to make it clear that I have no interest whatever in the gas company. I do so for the simple reason that I think this Order is in the interests of the gas consumers in the town that I represent, and, therefore, I oppose the Amendment.

12.3 a.m.

Colonel CHAPMAN: I think the House will feel that this is a case of a house divided against itself, when we have one hon. Member for Sunderland speaking on one side and the other hon. Member for Sunderland speaking on the other, but I hope that the House will support the Order, because I also represent a portion of Sunderland and so the greater number of Sunderland representatives are in favour of the Order.

Mr. THOMPSON: Does the hon. And gallant Member mean area or number?

Colonel CHAPMAN: I mean both number and area, because the Division of Houghton-le-Spring has a greater area in Sunderland than the Division of Sunderland itself. The senior Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson) said he wished that some agreement could have
been reached. That no agreement has been reached is entirely due to the Sunderland Corporation, for the gas company throughout have endeavoured to come to terms. In the first place, they met a sub-committee of the Sunderland Town Council and agreed terms, but they were not confirmed by the Corporation. They then applied to the Board of Trade for an Order, but the Board told them to go back and see again if they could not come to terms with the Corporation, and the Corporation said they could only discuss them provided there was no additional dividend to be allowed to the shareholders. The hon. Member for Sunderland has claimed that it will be an extra ½ per cent. dividend paid away which has not been worked for, as if it has not been worked for when the company, by its own initiative, has been able to get a supply of coke oven gas and bring it seven miles to get the benefit of it.
The hon. Member also said that in another town not very far away they are supplying gas at 2d. a them cheaper. That is true, and it is the town of Middles brough, but there the works of Messrs. Dorman, Long, and Company, which supply that coke oven gas, are alongside the gas works. There is no difficulty in getting it there. The hon. Member's principal objection is that there is no opportunity for a revision of this Order, and he is afraid that if they got more coke oven gas, the shareholders might get a greater dividend, but it is not possible, because they are getting the maximum amount of gas with which the colliery can supply them or is likely to be able to supply them. But even if they were able to get sufficient gas to reduce the price by 2d. a them, it would mean that the consumers would get £55,000, the employes £10,000, and the shareholders only £6,000, and even then the shareholders, on the actual money which they have put into the company, would not be getting more than 7 per cent. Is there to be no incentive to industry in order to try and get the best out of modern methods?

Mr. THOMPSON: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at his figures?

Colonel CHAPMAN: The basic dividend at present is 6 per cent. If there were a reduction of 2d., that would mean an extra 2¼ per cent. The capital of the gas company is £300,000 upon which
dividend is paid. The shareholders have paid another £50,000 upon which no dividend is paid, so that the extra amount they have put in is £350,000; 8¼ per cent. on £300,000 is equal to 7 per cent. on £350,000. The hon. Member for Sunderland said that this was not a suitable time to give a basic price, as it was in a depressed area. We all remember him speaking a few weeks ago on behalf of the depressed areas. He is attempting to-night to put this corporation and the ratepayers to another heavy expense. They have already been forced to pay between £5,000 and £6,000 in litigation, every penny of which will have to be paid by the ratepayers or the consumers. That £6,000 is equivalent to 2d. on the rates, and yet the hon. Member is asking that other areas in the country shall give some of their gas to help to depress Sunderland. I hope that the House will approve of this Order. It is a fair return for a company which for a hundred years has been an example to the gas industry and the country. It has always produced gas at a low rate, and the consumers throughout have had a benefit which no other town in the country except Middlesbrough has had.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I hesitate to join in the difference that has unfortunately arisen between the two hon. Members who represent Sunderland, but as the hon. and gallant Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Colonel Chapman) has spoken, there does not seem to be any reason why I as representing an adjacent division should not intervene. I support the Amendment on broad and general grounds. I support what has been said by the senior Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson). It is obvious the Sunderland Gas Company is a monopolistic concern, and when we are dealing with such a concern, which is vested with statutory powers, it is essential that we should be vigilant to ensure that there is no abuse of those privileges, or at any rate, no possibility of those privileges being abused. The Sunderland Corporation is to be congratulated on the step it has taken on behalf of the inhabitants of Sunderland. The senior Member for Sunderland has sufficiently demonstrated the possibility that, if the Order stands in its present form, the danger may arise that Sunderland Gas Company may allocate certain of its profits to dividends
which should rightly be allocated towards a reduction in the price of gas. Surely that is the main argument against the Order standing in its present form. As I understand it, the only request now being made by the senior Member for Sunderland is that this Order should be referred to a Select Committee for examination, and I submit that that is an entirely reasonable request.

12.11 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The House will gather that not every Member who has spoken is familiar with the facts and arguments in this case. It is always regrettable, partly because it is after 11 o'clock and for other reasons if there is a dispute on the submission of a Gas Order, but in this case I think I shall have little difficulty in satisfying the House that none of the fears and alarms expressed are well grounded, that the interests of the consumers and the public have been closely investigated and safeguarded by the Board of Trade, that there is no substance whatever in this Amendment, and that the Order ought to be allowed to go through in the form in which it is presented. There is a dispute between the senior Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) and the Board of Trade on two matters. Parliament delegates to the Board of Trade the control of the conditions under which the monopoly of the manufacture and distribution of gas is to be exercised by the gas companies. The Sunderland Gas Company approached Parliament for an Order, asking that the price of gas should be 7d., a figure which was reduced to 6½d., and afterwards to 6d. The whole circumstances of the basic price, dividends and other conditions were most elaborately thrashed out by a Select Committee of another place. There were arguments, counsel were heard and the whole matter was completely canvassed.
It is after all that investigation and expenditure that the senior Member for Sunderland comes to this House to suggest that the matter should be reinvest gated, with further expenditure by another Select Committee. Why? Because, it is said, if this Order is allowed to go through the gas company could distribute a higher dividend than they do at present. I hold an undertaking from the Sunderland Gas Com-
pany that for a period of two years from the 1st July, 1933, they will not pay a higher dividend than their existing maximum dividend. That is a complete answer to the first point. That deals with the distressed area.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: Only for two years.

Dr. BURGIN: If Sunderland is still distressed at the end of two years, the hon. Member can come to me again.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: You will not be there.

Dr. BURGIN: That is not a reason why the hon. Member should not come to me.

Mr. THOMPSON: Will you deal with the 27 of a penny? Why was not that considered?

Dr. BURGIN: I wanted to deal with the dividend first. The Board of Trade takes power to revise the basic price if circumstances arise beyond the control of the gas company. That, and the conditions are all set out in Clause 14 of the Order. The differences between the Sunderland Corporation and the Board of Trade is that we take the view that the provision as to taking coke oven gas when it can be supplied is within the control of the company and not outside its control. We think the company are deserving of a good mark for efficiency and enterprise in having the good sense to take coke oven gas when it is available near to and on satisfactory terms and so far from penalising them we want to encourage them. It would be quite wrong for the Board of Trade to give any inducement to companies to continue to make gas on uneconomic lines in their own town, when plentiful supplies of coke-oven gas are ready at hand. We want to allow them to have the full benefit of enterprise and foresight, and it is because that enterprise and foresight have been shown that we are allowing the 27 pence, to which the hon. Member referred, to be taken into account.
The senior Member for Sunderland referred to the Gas Light and Coke Act, 1931, and to an Act or Order dealing with the Newcastle Gas Company. He read out a paragraph dealing with provisions in that Act or Order, which he seemed to think would be of assistance
if they were incorporated in this Order. I should like to assure him that if they had been, they would not have helped him in the least. In the Gas Light and Coke Company's Act, it says that the Board may revise the basic prices under certain conditions, and it also says that the gas company may submit to the Board that any profit resulting from efficiency should not be taken into account. The Board had already notified them that they regarded the taking of coke-oven gas as a mark of efficiency. How then could it help my hon. Friend to insert that provision? I have already ruled that the taking of coke-oven gas is a mark of efficiency.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: But the difference is this: Under the revisionary Clause, the corporation would have the right to raise the question. Under the Clause in the Order the Board of Trade cannot even take any steps to alter or consider that basic price.

Dr. BURGIN: What I have said is this. The Board of Trade do not want power to revise, wherever circumstances are within the control of the company. They take power to revise in circumstances beyond the control of the company. If it should be found necessary to revise the price within the control of the company, it would need another Gas Regulation Act, for which the Board would not hesitate, if necessary, to come to Parliament. The Board of Trade, with the best wish in the world to look after the interests of all parties, have examined this matter and have come to the conclusion that justice has been done by the Order as it is.

12.19 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We are not in the least satisfied with the answer the hon. Gentleman has given, and we propose

to support the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the value of the private profit-earning system, unlike the senior Member for Sunderland, who has abandoned those old views. We support him in that. We certainly think that encouragement should not be given to private interests of this sort, who own monopolies, to earn larger sums of money than are absolutely essential for maintaining business especially in circumstances such as the present, in which the company was satisfied with the 6 per cent. which Parliament thought it sufficient to allow in 1919. Now, with the vastly lower rates of interest current, they are apparently to be given an immediate opportunity of earning a greater sum. The undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has flourished is perfectly valueless. What was asked for was an undertaking not to pay more than 6 per cent. and to distribute the remainder of the earnings in remission of prices. The undertaking has been given not to distribute more than 6 per cent., but the rest will presumably be put to reserve, and, after the expiration of two years, will be entirely distributed. It is a perfectly nugatory undertaking, and I am surprised that anybody with the intelligence of the hon. Gentleman was taken in by so simple a trick. We ask the House to say that there is no validity in the hon. Gentleman's argument when he says that because this has been die-cussed somewhere else, therefore this House should not discuss it. It is a very bad reason if this House is to exercise control. I believe that the House should exercise control, and I ask them to support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 38.

Division No. 236.]
AYES.
[12.22 a m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thl'd., Hexham)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Elmley, viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Burnett, John George
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gilford


Bateman, A. L.
Cayzer, MaJ. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gfedhill, Gilbert


Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Christie, James Archibald
Gower, sir Robert


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Clarry, Reglnaid George
Greene, William P, C.


Borodale, Viscount
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bossom, A. C,
Cook, Thomas A.
Guinness, Thomas L. E, B.


Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Calonel Sir George L-
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Harbord, Arthur


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morrison, William Shephard
Stones, James


Hornby, Frank
Nall, Sir Joseph
Storey, Samuel


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strickland, Captain w. F.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred S.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sucter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peat, Charles u.
Sutcllfle, Harold


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Penny, Sir George
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Petherick, M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Jamleson, Douglas
Pike, Cecil F.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montross)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Liddall, Walter S.
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mabane, William
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rots Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Weymouth, Viscount


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Runge, Norah Cecil
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McKle, John Hamilton
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wills, Willrid D.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Salt, Edward W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sandoman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Slater, John
Womersley, Walter James


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)



Merrlman, Sir f. Boyd
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chlsw'k)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Blindell.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Groves, Thomas E.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Dagger, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards. Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. Thompson and Sir Wilfrid


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentlne L.
Sugden.


Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Sunderland Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th day of March and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:—
Section 3, page 2, line 20, after 'added limits,' insert 'together with so much of such portions of the added limits.'
Section 3, page 2, line 21, leave out 'and the added limits,' and insert 'as are outside the county boroughs of Sunderland as constituted at the date of this Order.'
Section 3, page 2, line 29, leave out 'April,' and insert 'July.'
Section 19, page 11, after Sub-section (3), insert,—
Provided that the amount so credited shall not be applicable in or towards increasing the dividend for any year on the ordinary stock of the company beyond that which would be payable for that year if one-eighth of the sum calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) of section sixteen (Division of surplus profits) of this Order were applied for the benefit of the holders of ordinary stock.'
Section 21, page 12, after Sub-section (3), insert,—
(4) The amount standing to the credit of the contingencies and renewals fund of
the company at the prescribed date shall be credited to the renewal fund authorised by this section.
(5) As from the prescribed date Section one hundred and twenty-two of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall cease to apply to the company.'

SOLICITORS BILL.

Ordered, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith".— [Mr. Roy Bird.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before One o'Clock.